I’ve put it off. I’ve stalled.

First of all, to those of you who scoffed and mocked when I said I’d try to make this a weekly column... you were absolutely right. Point taken.

It’s not that I mean to drag ass. I don’t. I get distracted. I get sidetracked. And it frustrates me that I’ve put off one thing in particular. There was a reason, though, and I’ll do my best to explain myself.

Let me fess up. I’ve dreaded writing this piece since I saw the film back in December. I’ve had writer’s block about it. I’ve started this review five different times. And, truth be told, I’ve been gutless about it. It’s never fun to write a negative review, and it’s even less fun when you’re writing about a film that has viewers divided before they’ve even seen it.

But I don’t like this movie. In fact, in those moments where I’ve been most unguarded about my reactions, the film makes me angry. I’ve got problems with many of the key creative choices that Mel Gibson made, and after observing the entire build-up to the release, I respect him a lot more than I can claim to like him. He’s shrewd, and he made all the right moves in terms of turning this into a cultural event. It’s all smoke and mirrors, though. In creating a buzz that can’t be stopped, he forgot to make a movie that’s worth all the fuss.

Don’t get me wrong. I think THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST is a striking work of visual art, accomplished in many ways, and there are several powerful performances in the film including Jim Caviezel’s magnificent star turn.

But I also think it’s sloppy, obvious, confused about its own motives. It will upset many viewers, and not for the reasons Gibson intended. What you will take from the film depends largely upon what you bring to it. It’s an act of devotion, no doubt about it. It’s hardly the first misguided thing done in the name of Jesus Christ, and it certainly won’t be the last.

How can you reconcile such conflicted reactions to a film? It’s this quandary that tied me in such persuasive knots as I tried to write about the film. I can’t ignore the things I like, the things that linger. There are several points in the film where Gibson flashes back to earlier points in Christ’s life. These are beautiful, tender moments of humanity, and they surprised me with their quiet resonance. The work by Maia Morgenstern as Mary, Christ’s mother, is luminous. She is the heart of the film as much as Caviezel is the soul. Their work, along with that of Jarreth Merz as Simon, deserves special praise.

I also can’t ignore the things that pull me completely out of the movie, the things that make Gibson’s picture seem indefensible to me. I can’t get past the almost comical approach to the supernatural. I can’t get over the horrific narrative choices regarding Pilate and the Pharisees. I can’t deny my powerfully negative reaction to certain violent sequences, such as the scourging, one of the most cartoonish sequences I’ve ever seen in a “serious” movie.

The only way to be fair is to try and separate the value of the film from the emotional response inherent to seeing any visual representation of suffering on this scale. I don’t know how anyone could watch some of these sequences without feeling a profound sense of horror and empathy. But to what effect? What does Gibson think he’s illuminating with his film? By bringing these particular events to the screen and by showing these particular details, what message does Gibson think he’s trying to convey?

Passion plays have always been controversial since their creation circa 14th century, and for good reason. They’re typically emotionally intense affairs, and for the participants, they can be deeply spiritual experiences. However, because of their particularly specific focus, they rely on broad charicature to make their dramatic points, and they certainly aren’t meant to speak to anyone besides the faithful. Gibson spoke at BNAT about all the research he did for this, but none of it shows up onscreen. He’s done nothing to innovate or elucidate, instead falling back on the conventions of the genre. Yes, he hired Caleb Deschanel, one of the best working cinematographers, and the two of them have summoned some real visual thunder. Gibson obviously drew on a wide range of influences from Western religious art, and the film feels at times like a Caravaggio come to life. Unfortunately, the film’s got all the depth of a painting in terms of character and subtext.

Time for another confession: I think Gibson’s a fairly pedestrian filmmaker overall. He’s good at watching the work of others (Orson Welles and Akira Kurosawa practically deserved a shared directing credit on BRAVEHEART) and emulating things that work. But there’s an ego that taints everything he makes, a smarmy self-satisfied persecution complex that runs through all his movies. The Teacher in THE MAN WITHOUT A FACE, William Wallace in BRAVEHEART, and Caviezel’s Jesus are all men who are punished simply for being who they are. It almost seems inevitable that he would finally get around to making this film, like he’s been revving up to it, dealing with it as allegory up until now. Not since Charlton Heston in the ‘70s has one actor struck quite so many Christ poses. The one thing that keeps this from being the most insufferable vanity project in recent memory is Mel’s decision not to star in it.

As with any spiritual story told with real fervor and fuelled by belief, there is value here. No matter what you believe about the divine nature of Jesus Christ, he was definitely martyred, and since all we see in this film is that moment – his torture and eventual death – whatever message the film carries must be taken from only what’s shown to us. The notion of accepting such brutal punishment in order to pass grace on to the rest of the world seems impossible to understand for many of us, and this film makes it abundantly clear that this was no easy choice for Jesus to make. If viewed as part of a larger context, this could make an important point.

That one word is central, I think, to understanding why THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST ultimately fails as great cinema: context. There is none. I’ve read some very smart, well-written reviews of this film so far, like Roger Ebert’s, David Poland’s, or A.O. Scott’s. All of them exhibit varying degrees of expertise about scripture and history, and no one should be faulted or dismissed based on how much or how little they know. I’m no expert, but I do profess a lifelong curiousity about the world’s religions. In my life, I’ve considered myself a Catholic, an Episopalian, a Buddhist, and now, simply, spiritual. I find great comforts in writings from many cultures and faiths, and I believe that there are important moral lessons in most of the sacred texts from the world’s faiths. It is impossible for me to watch this film and not compare it with my own feelings about faith and my own understanding of history. For someone walking into this film with no special knowledge of the Gospels or history or the way the Bible was written and why, this film offers no context, no greater explanation of what it’s all supposed to be about. From the opening scenes in Gethsemene, Gibson immerses you in an experience, but he seems unsure about his point-of-view in the movie. He makes odd digressions, obsesses over the strangest details. I think his visions of evil are laughable, frankly, and there’s a scene where Judas is chased down by demon kids that plays like a weak lift from Chris Cunningham’s “Come To Daddy,” just one bizarre moment in a film that has many.

People who act shocked at the charge that the film is anti-Semetic are either so completely innocent of hatred that they just don’t recognize it, or they’re intentionally turning a blind eye. The film is based on very specific material from the Gospels, some of which flies directly in the face of what historians have learned. In adapting this film, Gibson and his co-writer Benedict Fitzgerald had to decide what to include and, perhaps even more importantly, what to exclude. Every choice reflects the agenda with which they approached the film, and one of the things that troubles me most is the way Pilate is portrayed. The historical Pilate was a cruel man, by all accounts, who used sadistic punishments to send messages to the pilgrims that were flooding Jerusalem in those days. One of his favorite methods was crucifixion. It’s likely that he not only ordered the death of Jesus himself, but he also chose the exact spot where it took place as a warning to those just arriving at the city. When the Gospels were written, the Romans were still an occupying force, and the portrayal of Pilate was softened in the text so that early Christians didn’t draw undue wrath down upon themselves. It was a matter of self-preservation. So what’s Gibson’s excuse? Why cling to this version of things? And, no, the answer’s not as simple as, “It’s in the book.” Each of the Gospels offers up a different version of events. In the book of John, there’s no Jewish trial at all. There’s one quick conversation with a single high priest, and then Jesus is condemned. Gibson chose to use the interpretation that Pilate is a good man in a hard spot. In doing so, Gibson shuffles the real blame back to the Jewish Council and the crowd they’ve got with them. They are the ones who make the call, which simply wasn’t the case.

I don’t know... maybe it just disturbs me that MONTY PYTHON’S LIFE OF BRIAN offers a better, more complete and accurate view of the political and social structures against which the Christ story played out. I commend Gibson for having the personal and artistic courage to put his own money and reputation on the line for such a difficult piece of material. He made this film because it was important to him. You can feel it in every frame. But earnest good intentions do not great art make. If they did, Paul “No Talent” Anderson would be Stanley Kubrick, and THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST would be a transcendent work of religious art that would endure beyond the moment the hype dies down. I plan to see the finished version in theaters since I did see a working rough cut, but I can’t imagine the film has changed much. Give me Scorsese’s LAST TEMPTATION. Give me Pasolini’s ST. MATTHEW. Give me a Jesus I recognize, a Jesus who did more than suffer. There is a whole world of human experience Gibson’s movie misses, and that tunnel vision keeps the movie from reaching the heaven it so desperate strives for.

On that note, I’ll hit the sack and try to catch a few hours sleep. Today’s the day everybody gets their peek at this film, and, of course, I expect nothing less than youre your full and uncensored feedback below. Until then...

I can't say a whole lot until I see it. I'm a newbie in Christianity and have yet to read a lot of the Bible. My hope is that Gibson's work gives insight into those writings. It's all interpretation for the most part...most religions in their practices hold the scripture in different ways. I expect Gibson's movie is just another interpretation, but should hold the main premise in check.

The point of this movie is not to be an all around interpritation of events both biblical and historical. It is from the bible and this man's faith. I my self am no christian and consider myself Gnostic/Pagan. I have a very differnt out look on Jesus Christ. In the Gnostic text there are many who believe Jesus was aginst being a martyr. That being said, it is unfair to bash this movie because it doesnt take into account all other faiths. It is his art. I commend him for taking a chance with this story

Most movies that are made in Hollywood are anti-white?
Hollywood is controlled by jews. Most Hollywood movies have British and German villains. Blacks are overrepresented on TV. They're either seen as the "victim" or superior to Whites. Blacks are NEVER portrayed negatviely, whereas whites are always the villains.
Clearly this is anti-white racism at the hands of Hollywood jews.

I am not religious but this film looks very interesting from a visual point of view. I don't know, I still feel that if that is all it has I would feel tainted watching it. Jesus was a real figure and did suffer, regardless of your faith or not. I like The Last Temptation of Christ immensely, I suspect it has more to say than this. Gibson is not good enough to tackle this type of material controversially and give it depth. I suppose everybody knew that anyway though.

go rent a sam jackson movie, any sam jackson movie and tell me white people are always the villians in hollywood and blacks never are. also as far as TV is concerned, like 99% of the actors on tv sitcoms and drama's are white. get over yourself.

I really believe that Moriarity is the brains behind this operation. I really wish that he'd go "mainstream" and start doing this professionally. I still want to see this movie. Not because I'm a religious nut, but because it sounds interesting. Its sounded interesting from the beginning. On a somewhat off topic subject, I would also like to see a movie about Muhammad and the early years of Islam. Given the times in which we live, I think it would be interesting to explore one of the driving forces in the world. It would also get us out of our nation's Christian-centric exploration of religion. Plus, it is an epic story. Lots of battles, intrique, betrayal etc.

Uh, wait, no it isn't. Go figure that the one real thing you mention about the movie as being bad is the anti-semitic thing. Not the visual aspect, not the acting, not the writing, not the content, aside from the "scourging"... and let me ask you this, we've seen whipping recently in everything from Glory to Carnivale, how was Mel to make his different? Hmmmm... But I wouldn't expect a liberal asshole to think for himself, I expect him to pick up on the liberal asshole theme for not liking something and run with it. Ok, fine, you didn't like the movie... for POLITICAL reasons... That's your right I guess. So this'll make 4 or is it 5 accounts that are deleted... Thank MEL for free email accounts I suppose. Pedestrian filmmaker indeed. I remember reading you shoot your jizz over Signs and Braveheart, etc. You suck, sir. You suck balls.

Drew I agree with most of what you wrote. I actually liked it's single mindedness. It's a pity there wasn't any shading because it's a beautiful film, and there are moments that have stayed with me since we saw it in December. Oh, don't mind the Black Grape Subject title, my nana was a Catholic....

Reading review after review all over the internet, and after having viewed the film, I do realize that whoever made the Yoda comment "only what you take with you" is extremely astute. This film seems to be bothering a lot of film lovers because they don't understand it, they don't know the source material and feel upset that the movie does not cater to their ignorance. And by ignorance, I do not mean anything negative, simply that they are Biblically ignorant. And so because of this their criticism seems to revolve around how the story "should" have been told, what it should have included, but it seems to me that what Gibson has done is created art, if you know the context you will see more. Okay fine, so people don't get it, who cares. Except that people like Moriarty are usually so thrilled to have a film reference all their geek pleasures, and if others don't get it, than that makes the geeks that much the happier because they have something that they can lord over others. I understand this, nya nya na nyaa nyaa. Well it seems the tables have turned in this sense, the "crazy christians" seem to have a film that they can embrace, and not some TBN produced "christplotation" but something that is honest to goodness art and I think the fact that not only is it visually stunning, but the fact that many in Hollywood do not get it while "damn evangelicals" do, just make them that much more incensed.

Please explain. Fact: The Sanhedrin and church elders did not have the power to execute prisoners - they had to bring Christ to Pilate and this is what they did. Pilate did give the order to execute Jesus - this is in the gospels - and he didn't do so reluctantly so much as he just didn't give a shit. The fact remains that it was the temple elite who felt threatened by Jesus, paid Judas to give Him up, arrested Him, and turned Him over to Pilate to have Him crucified. Who killed Jesus? Well, first God planned it. Then Judas betrayed Him, soldiers arrested Him, the temple elders tried Him in a kangaroo court, Pilate condemned Him, the bloodthirsty mob cheered, Roman guards nailed Him to the cross, and just about everyone mocked Him until His death, including the two robbers who were being crucified at the same time! Finally, He died to absolve the world, including all of us living today, of our sins. People who charge that the gospels put forth that "the Jews" killed Jesus are guilty of the same simplification and over-generalization that they accuse Christians of making. Is it possible to criticize the church while still being true to the faith? This is what Jesus did, and this is the story that the gospels and Gibson's film tell. Much like Martin Lawrence's character in BOOMERANG, who accused the game of billiards as being racist, people who read anti-semitism into the bible are seeing things that simply are not there. Have people interpreted the gospels wrongly in order to justify anti-semitism? Yes. These same people could interpret episode #3756 of Sesame Street to justify anti-semitism if they wanted. Does that make episode #3756 of Sesame Street anti-semitic simply because a Godless bigot interpreted it that way? Is billiards really racist because the white ball knocks the black ball into a hole in the "ground"? Get a grip Drew - you're smarter than this.

I'm not standing up for the film, for I haven't seen it, but based on the reactions I've been reading (and let's face it, you can't look right or left without seeing an article on the Passion somewhere) I find some of Moriarty's points a bit off putting.
First off, I believe that this film is based on The Passion, and most of that is contained within Mark's Gospel, if I remember rightly. Basically, this film is a visual depiction of the 12 stages of the cross. Visual descriptions of this hang on the walls of every Catholic Church the world over.
I think Moriarty's comments on the way Pilate is portrayed seem a little off balance. Sure, the Gospels weren't perhaps the whole truth - I'm not disputing that, but to say that Gospels weren't written with an agenda is something else.
The Gospels were written to turn people from the Jewish religion to the new Christian religion(to put it in brioad strokes). The portrait of Pilate may not be truthful, but Moriarty has to realise that the people the Gospels are trying to paint out as villains, were not the Romans, and were not those people who follwed the Jewish faith, but the High Priests and the Pharisees, the very people who stood as the authority on the religious teachings. If Gibson has based his film on 'The Passion' as stated in the Gospels then I can't see there being any other villain within the piece?
Is it anti-semitic - no I don't think so. It's not a condemnation of a race of people, but I can see how people are worried that it may change people's opinions on a religion. THAT'S WHAT THE GOSPELS WERE WRITTEN FOR! To convert people from the traditional Jewish faith. This is the same story used within the New Testament, that proved so powerful, because it allowed the business of the Christian Church to prosper.
The film, I expect, will attack the Jewish Priests, but does it attack the Jewish people? I find it hard to believe that it will.
I was raised a Catholic, although I do not class myself as a Catholic or any other denomination, but I am familiar (and by no means an expert) with the story of the Passion.
As for Pilate not making narrative sense, I'm sorry? The version of Pilate in the Gospels makes TOTAL narrative sense. Here is a guy, a Roman, the very race of people who were the oppresors of the Jewish people. Someone to be hated. And the Pharisees were meant to be the protectors of the people. What the Passion does is turn that relationship on it's head. The Pharisees refuse to acknowledge that Jesus is who he says he is and here's Pilate, a guy who shouldn't care one way or another (and doesn't) but even he senses that Jesus has done no wrong, but he daren't face the wrath of the crowd because it will give him more trouble. What this shows is that even Pilate, one of the most hated figures of his time, showed more compassion towards Jesus than the priests did - therefore adding a sympathy factor for the Romans and even more hatred directed at the Priests.
The priests stand for the Jewish faith - the Gospels were written to convert people from that faith. If Gibson's based it on the Gospels, then that's the story he's going to tell. The Bible isn't politically correct, it's motivated, political propaganda.
I'm not saying that Gibson's right or wrong, or that the New Testament's right or wrong in presenting a realistic, honest depiction of what happened 2000 years ago - but people really should have seen what was coming. Look at the source material!

Well of course he was going to suffer... Don't tell me you didn't know this was going to be a film about unjust suffering before you saw it... I mean how else would it work? That can't be any sort of valid reason for disappointent, can it? It's "The Passion of the Christ" not "Jesus: Bring it OOOANN!!!"

My husband and I, who have very religious (protestant) beliefs (but in different ways--I'm hyper liberal, he's a conservative), pre-viewed the film on Saturday night, and thought it was absolutely horrid. Granted, I have long believed that Mel Gibson has a Jesus complex, but I did npt expect this of him. I am a firm advocate for not letting facts get in the way of the truth. Obviously Gibson is too, which would be fine if he weren't claiming to have done vast amounts of research and being sure everything in it is true...well, this movie is neither historically nor scripturally accurate. If it weren't for all the controversy and the "you're either with us or against us" bush-ist comments made by Gibson, the movie would not be doing anything. It would be viewed as an inaccurate piece of trash.
But Kudos to Newmarket. They did it again. They are the true genius in this story.

Here's the deal, kids. How many frivolous, jovial views of Mohammad have you seen? Buddha...? No? Here's the deal: when it comes to comical or insulting views of Jesus, there are many, almost all thanks to Hollywood. Entertainment Weekly's online site made a reference to the "12 most memorable" performances as Jesus in film, and at least half are insulting crap. "Will Farrell in 'Superstar'" is one of the most "memorable" Jesus performances of our time?!? Come on. This movie will make one thing quite clear: the man was brutally slaughtered.

Yes, it is supposed to be brutal, but you see little of the love from Jesus. You see only brutality from the Romans. The major complaint here is that Mel Gibson COMPLETELY missed the point of the story. Jesus is resurrected at the end, and it is shown for about 5 seconds. Yes, Gibson was unrestrained and blah blah blah blah...He lost the spiritual truth in the story. He really, really did.

...Because that's what it is. Having gone to the late show last night it was simply a MASTERPIECE. Bold, visionary, gut wrenching, masterfully directed and stunningly acted and filmed. Some of the most gorgeous photography I can recall in memory. It's a movie that after it's done you can barely breathe. You always hear the word "art" tossed around in relation to things, but NEVER was it more warranted than here. This movie was 5 star from start to finish. Without question had the PASSION been released at the end of the year, Gibson would be taking home his second director's Golden Boy instead of Peter Jackson this Sunday night and THE PASSION would probably be taking the big prize too -- because to deny that it's without question THE most powerful and THE most emotional and THE best movie of the last 365 days would be ridiculous. Mori, it's bad enough that I only sometimes agree with you and think that often your ego is out of control, but this time you're even MORE full of shit than the sorry assed and completely clueless opinions you voice during your dweebish Jedi Councils. Actually, I'll give Mori one bit of credit. At least he TRIED to blur and bury his politics and talentless hack opinion with repeatedly droning and boring paragraphs that make utterly no sense (riiiiiight...the MONTY PYTHON film is a better, more accurate picture of the backdrop the story of Christ plays out against). The top of the shit heap is the NY DAILY NEWS and Jami Bernard's shrewish review which simply oozes her so-called professional journalistic mentality which is translated as "I have a political and religious agenda of my own, I intend to use a major U.S. newspaper as MY personal pulpit to bring down this film, and FUCK YOU if you get in my way or disagree with me, you Jesus freaks!" So it's ok, Drew -- so far you've written the SECOND biggest pile of manure about the movie.

.... "he was definitely martyred." Really? I don't remember that chapter in history class, and I went to fucking Catholic school. It's never been proved that Jesus was martyred, and I for one don't even believe he ever existed. So you can take that assumption away from the viewer. Everything written about Jesus was written over 70 years after he died, and the life expectancy was what, 40, 50 back then? He was a folk tale. A myth. That's all. And the fact that even Mori just believes hands down that he was real shows exactly to what extent the world has been duped by assumption. There's no proof. None. So despite all this bullshit hoopla about Jews and Magdalene, one thing remains true... nobody fucked with the Jesus.

This movie is not about blaming the jews for killing Christ nor is it about the teachings of Jesus...too many critics and stars are trying to say that the violence etc...that are shown is subverting the "basic tenet of Christianity" which they claim is "love thy brother"...This is not the basic tenet of Christianity...the point that Gibson is trying to make is that the basis of all Christian belief is that Jesus Christ suffered and died on the cross to remove original sin from humanity...in so doing human souls were allowed to be cleansed and return to the glory of heaven and God...it is the sacrifice that was made that makes the teachings of Christ resonate...God became mortal in the form of Jesus because he so loved the world that he was willing to sacrifice himself in the form of Jesus to save mankind. In order to show humanity its own brutality he was made to suffer in a brutal and horrible fashion...Jesus being run over my an ox cart at the age of 33 teaches us nothing...it was the brutal death that makes people understand the meaning of suffering...to portray it in any other way is a lie...crucifixion was a horrible reality made even worse for Jesus due to the nailing, scourging, crown of thorns and piercing...others were simply tied up and left to suffocate under their own body weight...it is the fact that Jesus, even though he knew his fate, and could have prevented it any time as he was challenged to do took that suffering on himself and showed us even in death what we should bewcome.."father forgive them for they know not what they do"...that is Gibson's message and it could be no less as a devout catholic...whether you believe in Jesus as the son of God..or just as a historical figure his suffering and the way he handled it are why Christianity is still a religion today...and for people who often decry fakery in movies and say effects have made things less real at the cinema I am suprised by the reaction to the extreme violence...do you want the camera to turn away and not capture the reality of crucifixion?

You know, those of you saying that Mortiarty should only talk about what was in the movie, what was he supposed to write about? The quality and execution of the beating scenes? It's a movie about a man getting tortured to death over the course of two hours. If he can't try to talk context, neither can you. Have fun. ..... That having been said, I think the fundamental problem here is one of interpretation. There are, boiled down, two schools of thought on Jesus' importance. One is that his significance is as being a great teacher and guide. When he said that you can only get to heaven through him, he meant by following his example. Anyone who behaves as he preached and acted will receive his reward. ..... But, the other interpretation is that the crucifixion was everything. Worship Jesus, and his sacrifice automatically cleanses you. This standpoint, taken to an extreme, essentially renders the rest of his life meaningless. It doesn't matter what he did in life, just that he was God's son, and by dying for us we're all saved - no matter what he did to get himself killed. And that, sadly, appears to be the point of view of The Passion. ..... Mel all but admitted this in the Diane Sawyer interview when he said it was these 12 hours that spoke most to him in the Christ story. He feels that Jesus' death was more important than his life. This is a most distressing point of view to those of us who believe Jesus should be revered as a teacher, not as a whipping-boy. This movie appears to be little more than a guilt trip. "Look how much suffering Jesus went through for your sins, so worship him you ungrateful bastard." That's a point of view I just can't get behind.

I take Moriarty's reviews of unfinished films with a grain of salt. Both he and Harry lavished praise on the unfinished abortion to cinema known as The Grinch, when Ron Howard flew them in. I know for a fact, Drew would have ripped it apart. On top of that, he has left his opinion three months of time to collect dust inside his brain (I never write a review for a movie I saw over a week ago, its just unethical), and marinate with the influential juices of the media as well as the people in the entertainment industry that he works with. For better and worse, this is Gibson's Citizen Kane. He made the movie he wanted to make, and it looks like it could forever damage his career as an entertainer. I am going to see this movie tonite, and was going to see it on the first day reguardless of how much attention the media lavished on it. The comparison of Gibson to Paul W S Anderson was totally a low blow too by the way. I imagine that if anderson made a movie about jesus christ, he would have Jesus fighting zombie dogs in hell in overcut martial arts fighting sequences. If anything, this could resemble a film by Paul Thomas Anderson, entitled Magnolia, a film that flourished as well as suffered in its own excesses.

I think columnist Steve Beard said it best at National Review Online: "This is the Sunday-school flannel-board lesson for a generation that grew up on violent video games, skipped church, and stood in line to watch Quentin Tarantino's Kill Bill, Volume 1

My God, how long until this review makes a point. Why am I reading about what religions you were? How about backing up your opinions with some examples! Try reviewing the MOVIE and not the SUBJECT of the movie. And who cares if Gibson gravitates to a martyr type story in his movies? What does that have to do with this movie? You waste my time with your ramblings! Can people just move past the contriversy and rate the film on the film's merit alone. Keep your religious beliefs to yourself!

...was the work of Thomas Patrick, in "Zombie Christ", the most controversial movie ever made. I only mention it because it's relevant to Techtite's point about the frivolous portrayals of Jesus. Speaking of which, how about Keanu Reeves as Buddha? That's almost as bad as Will Ferrel as the King of Kings. I'm going to send a DVD of Zombie Christ to Icon Pictures, Attn: Mel Gibson. www.zombiechrist.com

To indicate that Pilate was a violent, cruel man, would not be an inaccurate portrayal of not only him, but also most Roman governors at the time. However, to indicate that the Sanhedrin and the Pharisees and Sadducees were in any way not primarily at fault for the decision made to execute Christ is incorrect.
Any of the Gospels one might wish to read are full of attempts by the above-mentioned Jewish Leaders to discredit, humiliate, and yes, kill Christ. The Jewish people themselves were split, some wanted Christ dead, and others wanted to follow him. Christ was preaching a message that such people were not going to be needed, and like any powerful, controlling group, they did not want to lose power; witness the Crusades, Inquisitions, or any attempted coup, or the reign of any Dictator. Some people will do anything to keep power. And remember, just a few days before Christ and his disciple had what some call

I respect Gibson's guts. I think the guy has a serious set of balls to make this film. People who critize Gibson as makind a simple vanity film, well maybe it is but I would rather see this vanity film, than other vanity classics such as The Postman or Battelfield Earth. As a film lover, I am glad to see that such a serious-minded subject is being put on film. As a film lover, I am glad that such a risky (art) film is getting such a wide release. As a film lover, I am glad people are talking, debating, and screaming about a film. This type of controvery hasn't played out in the mainstream press, and in public forums since the release of JFK back in 1991. Its an exciting week to be a film lover.

With the exception of Harry of course. His review was fair and well thought out. Who'd have thought he'd write a better review than Mori? "no one should be faulted or dismissed based on how much or how little they know." What sort of relativistic liberal clap trap is that? By that logic, Mori should have given Gibson a free pass because Gibson should not be faulted or dismissed based on how much or how little he knows about the gospels. OOPPS!!

I pity the poor deluded fool who hasn't by now recognized that Mel Gibson is a sadist. The man has been associated with more images of bondage and torture committed to film than any violent porno director who ever lived. Over at CHUD.com, Nick Nunziata pointed out in his own negative review that about 85-90% of the movie is devoted to acts of brutality committed against Jesus. Any other film so overwhelmed with deviant imagery would be universally reviled, but simply associating it with a figure of worship seems enough to absolve Gibson in many eyes. Perhaps those same eyes could be used to read news articles about how Gibson cribbed much of the material used in the film from a delf-declared prophetic nun named Emmerich who wroted a deeply anti-Semetic novel about the passion in the 1800's. Even though the scripture Gibson claims to have been faithful to credits the Pharisees with warning Jesus about the plot against him, they were explicitly filmed by Gibson as being among the Christ's tormentors. I expect that if the film had spent a bit more time on Jesus' life, we'd have seen him weilding a cat o' nine tails against the moneychangers. Whether or not a "Jesus Christ" ever existed, we know for a fact that a great many Jewish martyres suffered these very same tortures (and worse, if you've read some of the gut-wrenching tales in the Talmud) without their blood washing away anyone's sins (as opposed to adding to them). The most rough and basic understanding of Hebrew reveals that "sin" is an archery term meaning "to miss the mark." How can the crucifiction of a man 2,000 years ago absolve anyone of falling short of doing what's right in God's eyes? By extention, how is anyone served by two hours of fetishistic imagery that could have been devoted to actually teaching someone Christ's way? Gibson is guilty of the sin of missing a glorious opportunity to teach the world about something righteous, instead of wallowing in and romanticising one of humanities greatest wrongs in popular belief.

You guys base entire arguments on books(gospels) written by religioius zealots centuries ago and you think they're historically accurate? You think they're valid arguments? People base their faith on gospels which are either completely inaccurate or partially accurate and claim that they're 100% truthful. Believing in this stuff is equivalent to believing in the tooth fairy. Just my opinion, and I do realize you're entitled to your own. Now flame away, but know that to hold to a belief with no evidence whatsoever is the sign of a weak, impressionable mind and is even worse than astrology.

What you just said makes absolutely no sense. You believe Newmarket has anything to do with the succesfull marketing of this film? Props to them for taking a chance, but lets be honest here, this is Icon's (interpret Gibsons) show all the way. They are footing most of the bill to publicize, Newmarket is merely a distributor. Also when the blockbuster numbers come out, and they will, it is the grass roots campaign through churches and Christian organizations that helped to get theater after theater booked for private screenings, Newmarket just gets to enjoy having their name up on the screen. Of course this use of Christian marketing will have Hollywood up in arms for several reasons. The first is that they hate Christians and do not want to see any film suceed on a national level that portrays their faith positively. Secondly they will be mad that they didn't think to do this first and will want to know how they can get a piece of the pie. Get ready for "The Bible" directed by McG, written by Charlie Kaufman and starring Paul Thomas Walker as Jesus.

Hulk Hogan rules,come to Wrestlemania XX, Brother!!
PS-religious movies are just a way for those gits that come round people's doors invading our privacy to do so without getting off their arses.
Having Faith is one thing (mmm, Eliza) but the bible is pants.
I used to like "Mad" Mel.

just the Last Supper?Poor choice, Da Vinci. Not to compare Mel Gibson with Leonardo Da Vinci, but critics that complain that there isn't more of Christs life on display miss the point. This is one glimpse at one moment in time, nothing more.

The dudes in Getmo are alive for a lot longer than international law says they should be.
According to the Geneva Convention, if you are an irregular combatant on the battefield and not in uniform you can be killed without any process whatsoever. These guys were trying to kill soldiers, not preach on a street corner. Bam and be done with it.
That being said, these guys are being held and being interrogated and I have some questions about that too.
Nothing to do with religious persecution...

Why the hell do the jews think they are hated for killing Christ? If Christ had not been executed he wouldn't have done what he was meant to do. If anything they were chosen by God to be his chosen people to deliver Christ back into heaven...Christians owe great thanks to the jews and the romans...sheesh...talk about a persecution complex!!

...you make an excellent point. Now please tell people to stop trying to kill, convert, and defame us (not necessarily in that order), and maybe we can work on our collective persecution complex. We're about a generation removed from having slurs like "Christ killers" shouted at us, ferchristsakes...

I put on my sharpest yarmulke, the loudest Hawaiian shirt I could find, and went to the 12:15 am show. Then, when the scourging started, I fired up a stogie and laughed like Max Cady in Cape Fear all the way through to the end. I think a few people sitting near me may have gotten a little irate.... Seriously, though, I'm Jewish and I would say that while Gibson made some choices that puzzled me and it's neither as good nor as bad as it's been made out to be, TPOC is NOT (that) anti-Semitic. I've not read Harry's review or many others so appy-polly-loggies if I repeat any points they made. First of all, there are several parts in the film where we see Jews vociferously protesting what's going on. Two of the high priests leave in outrage, calling Jesus's trial a travesty. Another Jew is forced to help Jesus carry the cross. At first he does so reluctantly, but after he sees how the Romans are treating Jesus he starts screaming that he won't take another step until they stop. They force him to anyway. Really, the people Gibson leans on the most here are the Roman soldiers. A Jewish woman washes Jesus's face at around the same point in the film. Many Jews are seen weeping and protesting on the way to the Crucifixion. And finally, after they take Jesus down, there's a shot where Mary stares sadly and accusingly into the camera as it tracks back for what seems like about five years.... meaning, WE, the audience, EVERYBODY, basically is responsible. I'm not a theological scholar, but it seems to me that Gibson soft-pedals Pilate's responsibility quite a bit. He practically has to be threatened with crucifixion himself before he'll order Christ crucified. And there's a part where he's telling Jesus he's sorry and Jesus says something like "those who delivered me to you bear the greater sin." This could just mean the high priests and the Jews who wanted the crucifixion, not all Jews. So I don't know why Gibson has such a hard-on for Pilate. But all this is pretty much wiped out by the stuff I mentioned before and the last shot of Mary. I don't know what I thought of it as a film, I'm still trying to absorb the experience less than 10 hours later. I will say that it's well worth seeing. And there are actually some sweet horror film moments in it here and there - gotta tip my beanie to the actress who played Satan, she was quite effective. Anyway, that's my two cents. Even if you wind up hating the movie, the process of engaging with it will be worthwhile.

I think the single most important thing to consider regarding this whole movie ordeal is fact and fiction. Lets be realistic there are no "factual" accounts of Jesus doing or meaning anything special outside of religious cirles, namely the bible folks. I find it very disturbing that everyone (here, the media, churches, etc) think they acutally have merit to argue for or against this movie with "facts". If there was actually any hard evidence one way or another there wouldn't be a single non-christian in this world, would there? The bible and everything in it are not factual (no other account in history supports the bible stories) they are simply what you make them. So arguing that Jesus was condemned on Tuesday and not Wednesday or that the jews condemend him or not is really irrelevant. Either you believe it or you dont, in which case I cant find the correlation this has with the movie. Afterall, the Lord of the Rings is a book with no factual documentation why arent we up-in-arms about its "factual" content as portrayed in the movies or the severe outcry against anti-orc mentality portrayed therein?

Domination, brother! Gimme a break.
And there is more evidence that Jesus lived than a TON of other historical figures that we take for granted.
Oh yeah, did you forget about the part that says...
Give us Barabas, Crucify him!
I'm seeing it tonite.

Movies about 1930's Germany are not considered Anti German. Movies about 1800's American Slavery are not anti white. So why is a movie about Jews wanting Jesus dead Anti Semitic? Are Jews so over sensititive that they want to rewrite history? Maybe next time roots comes on, I should scream out Racism because whites are portrayed as slave masters.

Calling this film anti-semitic is like saying that Christians BLAME the Jews for killing Jesus, as if he was never supposed to have died. This is ludicrous and in thinking this, one has totally missed the entire point of Christianity.

of a painting in terms of character and subtext" Hmmm...
You don't go to many art galleries or exhibitions do you? Also, making comparisons with "Life of Brian" is just plain crass. How about a comparison with reasonable depictions of the Passion or of the government that ruled at the time? I think that would be a little more fair.

Did anyone BITCH when Spielberg showed how the jews were treated in Schindlers List? All of a sudden now people cant stand to see the persecution of a man who went through all that for us, what a bunch of pussies.
maybe its the incredible guilt that hides within that doesnt allow you to stomach scenes like that but its ok to see a man shot in the head or people hack n slashed .
im seeing the movie today to determine if the critics are right about mel focussing more on the persecution than jesus actual message but you know what, even now I think its ok cuz everyone here knows jesus message already and they still choose to do whats wrong. people are gonna do what they want and what feels right to them , they dont care they know the message, so why make a movie to try to change their minds,
instead, SHOW what he went through, show the ingrates of this world full of pride and self righteousness that this perfect man went through this ordeal for our sins, just to give you monkeys a chance to actually have that choice of right and wrong.
pussies...

As I said, I've got questions about Getmo too. I'm certainly not going to defend holding people who weren't captured on a battlefield indefinitely. I think that it's a good thing that people are being released who are found to not be a threat and if I were them I'd be pretty pissed about being there too. I concede your point there.
The guys captured in combat are a different story. If they were Afghans or Iraqis, they should be treated as POW's and as far as I know, they are. In fact many of the regulars have been released back into society.
I don't know of any actual Iraqi soldiers being sent to Getmo for instance. However, if they were terrorists shipped in from out of the country and were trying to kill soldiers, they can and should be dead already and legally so. They're getting off easy so far by being in prison.
As far as the "they're only Muslims" crap, I don't think that's the point (we executed Nazi spies that we captured in WWII for instance) and it certainly doesn't represent my point of view. We can disagree but it's disingenuous and a little lazy to try and pull out the bigot card on me. Doesn't fit.

Comparing this movie to movies like Schindlers list and saving pvt ryan is just wrong. Almost every movie sited on this thread is based on DOCUMENTED FACTUAL HISTORY ACCOUNTS AS NOTED BY 1000's to 1,000,000s of people. Jesus is a story accounted by a handful of people during a very explosive timeperiod. No where near the same thing. You show me evidence other than the bible and youve got a decent comparison. Lets not compare facts and speculations.

What are you talkin about the bible is not factual and nothing in history supports it? Thats a comment an Atheist would make. An an Atheist is someone who just doesnt wanna believe in anything even if it was true. True ignorance.
Historians have countless of times went to the bible to compare for historical accuracy and have proven events and people IN the bible. also including times, dates and locations. Just because you dont see a huge tomb with the name JESUS does not mean he never existed,
do some research first before you try telling people the bible is a fictional piece of work.

...a deity made flesh so that he might succumb to all the pain and
anguish and temptation that everybody else faces; then his allowing
himself to be crucified was the choice by a god to commit suicide, as
he would have had the power to stop it all at any time and didn't.
I personally have no intentions of putting my faith in a deity that
chooses to commit self-murder and then tell me he did it to symbolicaly
save me from the judgement of an already cruel and indifferent god. The
whole thing sounds like a goddam conspiracy by arcane spirits in high places
who demand obedience in return for good fortune.
The Hebrews sacrificed animals prior to JC's coming and passing, and he
said "I am the lamb", to suggest that you wouldn't have to sacrifice
animals to make up for wrongdoing and get into the afterlife. He also
said "I am the way, the truth and the life". I've personally found that
all truth is subject to interpretation, that there are many ways to get
through life, and if there IS an afterlife, there's more than one idea
on what comes after death, when you look around the world. Who's right?
This carpenter's son from the countryside of Nazereth who chastised
Jewish priests and hung out with the dregs of society? I'd be more
inclined to listen to one of those nut jobs who have near death
experiences and see a "white light".
Forgiveness is a touchy thing, and tugs at alot of people's
heartstrings, and that's why they fall for it. In order for it to work
though, the churches must convince you that you're loved, but still a
worthless decaying body that cannot make proper decisions on your own.
This coming from people who once said the earth was the center of the
universe. Then they make you afraid for your life after this life, which
you are informed does not belong to you. Fear + Guilt + Shame = Control.
It's why Rome chose Christianity as their official religion a few decades
after destroying the temple in Jerusalem.
This is no philosophy I'll be a part of, thank you.

Who came up with the theory that Early Christians layed down to the Romans by sweetening the account of who Pontius Pilate was? The early Jewish Christians by historical accounts were pulled apart by wild horses, eaten by dogs and crucified. Despite all this they never abandoned their faith. Do you really think they would compromise their moral principles and lie about Pilate in order to curry favor with Rome. And what did they hope to accomplish? That the Romans would crucify them right side up rather than upside down. There is no logical or historical basis for the idea that they tried to make the Romans the good guys in the biblical accounts. Then you might ask why would Pilate show favor to Christ when he was a big time Jewish Crucifier? Never underestimate the power of a woman. If Nancy could get Ron Reagan to dabble in astrology don't you think Pilates wife could woo him to show favor to a Jewish Mystical Prophet called Jesus the Christ? Food for thought.

I have read the bible several times. All of the dates, people and places you are referring to are not accounted for historically. The bible, if anything, is very non-specific. If doesnt say that on Tuedsay the 17th of February Moses decided he would build a ship. It is all loose language (translated several times) and vague metaphorical descriptions. The only facts from the bible are very loose ones at best. Also dont forget that the New testament is drastically different from the old in context and form. Probably because of the time they were written. The point I was making before and am still trying to make is simply this: Either you believe it as fact or you dont. You shouldnt be so bold and quick to issue ignorace claims unless you have (beyond a shadow of a doubt) facts to support your vision of clarity. I can prove that Hitler existed, just like I can prove Alexander existed. If you can prove Jesus existed there would be no athesits, muslims, budhists, jews, or any other religion now would there?

Thanks for sticking to your guns on this one, Mori, and for bringing up a few of those irksome political/historical "choices" Gibson made in a film he wants to claim as accurate and truthful. Gibson's taste for torture has always put me off, and it's a shame so many are willing to support and celebrate mindless bloody violence as a meaningful and spiritual experience. One more quote from the only other sensible movie reviewer around these days: "In

You talk about this film having no context. This film does not exist in a vacuum. It isn't the purpose, or the responsibility, of this film to frame the socio-political climate for us, or to recount 33 years of His life so that we, as an audience, can become atached to Jesus. The audience will come into this movie with opinions, notions and knowledge of the subject matter prior to seeing the film. Your review shows that your opinion of this film is formed largely by your beliefs and prior knowledge. I really love this site, and truly enjoy reading your reviews, Mori. In fact, you make several very good points in this review. I agree with not liking the choice of "softening" Pilate. But could this just be a case of you being eager to be the first one on the backlash bandwagon this film is sure to cause with all the attention it is receiving? I hope not.

No sweat. I come ready to be pissed off on these boards myself...
Wait, could two people have possibly had a reasonable exchange of ideas on a talk back?
Wait, you favorite movie sucks or something...!

Think about this for just one second. If Christian doctrine is correct and all I have to do is believe that Jesus was the son of God, died for my sins, go to church for about an hour a week, honor the 10 commandments, live life by the golden rule, pray, and educate my soul then I receive eternal life in heaven. If I am wrong and their is no God, no heaven/hell, and no life after this then I die and rot in the earth. Either way I win so why take the chance? I would rather follow the Christian doctrine and take the chance that God does exist then not follow it and go to hell. If God does not exist, then nothing happens. Either way, I win.

You are correct, there are accounts of a man named jesus, but they are very few and most of them are in conjunction with religion (muslim, catholic, jew). There was also a man named David Koresh (think thats the right spelling) who had a handful of followers and a few words were written about him. Does that make him holy? In the eyes of some people (his followers) yes it does. Does that make him just another crazy? In the eyes of some it does. But does that prove the bible and jesus (the son of god) existed? just because a few people wrote about you doesnt mean its a fact. Look at Julius Caesar he lived before Jesus, theres not doubt he existed, and he didnt create the worlds second largest religion. Very strange there are not more accounts of Jesus than a handful when he is argueably the most widely recongnizable figure in the history of the world. Im not saying Jesus or the bible is right or wrong, Im simply saying its not fact and if there is any fact its the religious kind not the historical or scientific kind. IE thats why its called FAITH.

even though Christ is one of the most important figures in my life. Moriarty gave it his honest opinion, which he's entitled to, but the thing that gets me is how he is dissapointed in Gibson's influences. I mean, really, who can make a movie nowadays that is completely innovative, without ever having drawn influence from another source? The reason most people choose to use those techniques is that they have been proven effective. To think otherwise is ludicrous. If only the edgy, pushing-the-envelope type movies (I'm talking technically, not content) were the only movies people deemed worth watching, who knows what kind of pretentious, art house, handheld headaches we would be forced to endure? Anyway, point is, it's stupid to get mad at any MOVIE for employing MOVIE techniques.

Why? Because this review sounds like nothing as much as some clown who has a website where he charges losers to "make notes" on their wretched spec screenplays. Never having made a real sale himself, all he knows how to do is bitch about the stuff he heard in some other douchebag's screenwriting class. "Wah! Mel, your screenplay doesn't have a 3 act structure! Wah! There's no context! Wah! We need character development! Wah! We can only go by what we see on the screen, and can't consider 2000 years of cultural history of the main character!" No, no, no, and no. There is only pain, and horror. That is all that is supposed to be there. On the basis of pain and horror the devotee is meant to transcend his own doubt. It is not supposed to be a rational experience. Judging this film by its narrative structure is like judging a baggie full of shrooms by their TASTE.

Honestly I dont even have a desire to see this movie. Mel just seems so, I dunno, smarmy when hes on TV hyping it and in everything ive read its just a 2 hour bloodfest of pain and torture that i dont see what redeeming value i could take from seeing the movie....i also take offense to those who are on the "the jews killed jesus" bent. #1 they didnt and #2 jesus was SUPPOSED to die to save us from our sins, if the jews killed jesus that should make everyone pro jew since they helped us all not be damned....fuzzy logic?

Have you heard of Josephus? He was a Jewish historian who lived at the time of Christ. He corraborated his existence. Thanks for playing. You don't have to believe the fantastical accounts in the gospels but don't say stupid stuff.

...Is this because so many already believe that Bruce Campbell IS Jesus..? Actually, having shaken the man's hand, consider me agnostic on the whole "Divinity of Bruce" thing. ...Haven't seen "Passion" yet, look forward to it, but in a couple weeks probably, when passions (ha ha!) aren't running so high. But I wonder, having very recently made it through the harrowing "The Battle of Algiers" (in small rerelease) on the big screen, if Gibson's purported aim for "the most realistic depiction" would have been better served (and even more wrenching) in ye olde cinema verite style, rather than what I've read so far of Passion's highly stylized visual... style. Just a thought.

Damn if I don't find myself agreeing (mostly) with two people in a civil exchange on a talk back in the same day.
No arguement from me on the faith portion. As far as the small amount of documentation I see your point, to a point. But religious writings, paintings, buildings are one of the most enduring records we have from every time and culture so it gets rid of a lot of the historical record to discount them just because they are religious. Writings from other religions (notably Islam) also don't have much to gain by making up a Jesus guy just to add him to the lenghty list of prophets but only to go that far. I follow you on the Koresh thing (and I often think about the horrible misconceptions that people in the far future might draw from stumbling upon the wrong examples of our time out of context) but I'll also say that the some of the limits placed on "Jesus publicity" for lack of a better phrase can be accounted for by the fact that the apostles and other early Christians were forced to hide their beliefs (to the extent of meeting in catacombs etc) to avoid getting whacked by the Romans. Not the best environment to start breaking out the printing press (if it existed then) or building monuments. That wasn't able to start en masse until Constantine and the whole "Conquer with this" conversion made it the fashionable thing in the Roman Empire.

Sorry to say but thats basically what you get when you look at the different books of the Bible. The Romans may have done the crucifying, but the Jewish people ultimately turned their backs on Him. Oh and as for Moriarty talking about how Pilate was softened because of when the books were written so as to not anger the Roman occupiers... well yeah I saw that History Channel documentary too about 4 weeks ago..... Just because its on television deosn't make it true, that was a small group of historians conjecture about the crucifixion. Bottom line, if you're Christain you already know this story, and are just glad that someone made a high-quality version of it to help explain one small bit of our faith to others. If the details are hard to swallow, well history is a bitch sometimes....

Once the hype has died down, we will look back on "The Passion of Christ" as one of the boldest works of cinema ever. The fact a self-professed film fan like Moriarty cannot appreciate this is very disappointing. There's a general strain of intolerance in the reviews of this film- intolerance against religious and artistic freedom. The same sort of biased criticism that dogged "The Last Temptation of Christ." I think it will be up to future generations, (those whose reactions haven't been tainted by the media hype), to form fair opinions of the movie.

Strange how Mel Gibson flipped the situation that Martin Scorcese had with his Christ film. Martin had the right wing fundamentalists screaming for his head, while the intellectuals and film buffs championed him for his complex vision. Mel Gibson now , has the right wing fundamentalists championing him while many intellectuals and film buffs criticize the movie for being simplistic and painting in strokes too broad. Personally, I prefer a work of art that fleshes out ideas by complicating them and searches for truth by questioning. After seeing the Scorcese's film, I pondered it for days, bringing it up in disscussion with my family and friends. I watched it numerous times on home video and each time I was struck by different moments while the film, as a whole, avoided easy asnwers by providing multiple interperetations and a human, dynamic and complex Jesus. My views on Spirituality are similar to my views on art, a true faith does not mean a lack of questioning, in fact, avoiding simple answers and embracing the complexity of ideas in the world can lead to an ever evolving more compete worldview. In fact, one of the Jesus' attributes that I admire is his questioning of authority and search for a true morality. The real issue between Jesus and the Pharises to me, is not one of Judaism vs. Christianity, but one of a Corrupt Authority vs. a Non-Violent Movement for Justice. Mel's movie would have done better to further illuminate what Jesus stands for vs. what the establishment stood for, and explore what ways he was a revolutionary, not just a martyr. Too focus so much on a literal depiction of the Crucifiction at the expense of all else, the film simplifies things to a level of he was God's son who was brutalized and killed, a narrative which is more horrifying than illuminating. Too what end? To show the extent of his sacrifice? But what does his sacrifice mean when divorced from a true understanting of what he stood for? Since Christianity was adopted by Rome and spread by conquest throughout Europe and the globe, the revolutionary nature of Jesus has been dampened and his non-violent beliefs and actions have been de-emphasized. Christianity was now a religion that belonged to authority. As in most societies with a major organized religion, religious faith became conflated with believing and obeying without question codes set forth by the official church. Historically religion has been used by those in power to control those without power. It is ironic how Jesus formed a new religion by exposing the corruption of his own, then Martin Luthor started the protestant movement by exposing the corruption of the Catholic Church, then many Puritans left England for America, seeking a less tainted form of Protestantism, and now after hundreds of years of Witch Trials, Manifest Destiny, the Klu Klux Klan and other American religious attrociites we have a very corrupt and powerfull religious institution in this country. Mel Gibson in examining the condemning to death and execution of Jesus Christ, could have hit upon these issues of Jesus' struggle against a controlling corrupt religious authority and exposed the hipocrisies of the religious right in this country, especially at this day in age when we have a President who claims to be pious, who seeks to divide people against others by writing discrimination into our constitution, the document which guarantees our freedom. Instead Mel has made a movie which the religous right adores because presents a brutal and literal representation of Jesus that will galvanize their followers as each lash and blow to Jesus fills them with both sorrow and self-righteousness anger. An anger which inflames and unites. While, as I said, to me questions of anti-semitism are beside the point to me, let us also seriously consider the anxieties of those Jewish people who might fear the fallout of a widely viewed Passion film, let us not forget that historically passion plays have been used by the religious establishment (those who use religion as a way of maintaining power) as a method of scapegoating Jews and inciting pograms. So while, scapegoating is not Mel's agenda, could it be that of the powerful evagelical groups that are championing the movie? The same group that are always trying to scare their followers about a Hollywood Jewish conspiracy? Isn't that itself scapegoating, blaming problems on a few successful jews, while those who hold the real power are the George Bushs and Dick's Cheneys, not the Steven Spielbergs and Harvey Weinsteins? I don't take away an anti-semetic message from the film, yet also I am a critical and questioning type. So, please let us discuss these things... My searching and questioning mind cannot help but see that the religious right's condemnation of Tempation and praise of Passion represents a rejection of questioning authority and a desire for blind faith and inflamation of self-righteous anger.

...for once again being the voice of reason on this site, and pretty much the only reviewer worth reading. Before Harry's undoubetdly gushing Gibson's-ass-kissing rant comes in I'm glad you said what you did. Gibson has guts for the whole project, I'll give him that. And when it comes to emotion, he's a fairly able film maker (OH and to those people shocked you mention Wallace: so has 90% of every OTHER reviewer you idiots. Yes, it shows Gibson has always had a thing for martyr stories.) But the knowledge of his personal beliefs bother me. The branch of catholicism he's a fanatical member of ('opus dei') finds the current pope and vatican 'too modern' and disagrees on many fronts with the 1965 'renewal' that among other things, finally lifted the official policy that 'the jews killed christ and should suffer for it'. Mel obviously agrees with this. (And let's not even get into his father denying the holocaust)Furhtermore, the deliberate hype and controversy he so painstakingly created (saying he wanted to 'kill his animals and put a pole up his $%^' about a critic, calling people with objections 'the forces' or 'dupes' of Satan, among many other charming things) is simply distasteful. His cowardly attempts to hide behind the bible are ludicrous seeing how as you point out, the 4 gospels give different accounts and it was entirely up to him what to pick. The scourging isn't even mentioned in 2 of the gospels and in the 2 that it's in, it's only a few verses. So it was pretty much HIS choice to turn it into a 30 minute horror scene. (Btw Jesus would've been dead long before any crucifying if this had actually happened) The infamous line with which the rabble in the square is supposed to've cursed the entire jewish bloodline (an obviously fabricated and ridiculously primitive notion) is also not in all the versions, so it was HIS choice to put it in. Which doesn't even cover all the elements he lifted from some 17th century nuns' visions (huh??) or that he completely MADE UP! The moment Jesus defiantly gets up after the first part of the scourging was pure action-movie macho bullshit that served no purpose and is not in any scripture. It was a Rambo moment. The demonic children, the eye gouging, Pilate's wife, the female statan, etc. etc. all taken out of Mel's ass apparently. Also I am happy you pointed out what we know by now, that Pilate was a cruel SOB that even by other roman rulers was considered too brutal a sadist. He cared nothing for the jews and didn't even speak their language. He crucified them by the truckloads on a weekly basis. To turn him into the kind good, slightly wimpy man that is all guilt-ridden about this is just another emphasis on how 'innocent' the romans were in this. But the worst of all 'crimes' in this movie to me (a former christian, now agnostic/freethinker) is that Gibson seems to think that by shokcing us nauseous with gallons of blood and hanging flesh, by making a movie about nothing but slow horrific, torturous death, he thinks he can get the real point of Jesus across. Like he wants to scare and guilt-trip us into the church. "SEE!? SEE??? ISN'T THAT HORRIBLE!?? AND YOU DON'T EVEN GO TO CONFESSION!!" seems to be his message. Never mind what Jesus' teachings were, never mind his kindness or rebelliously modern ideas, never mind that he said that what's in your heart is more important than abritarily following the rules and obeying priests. Never mind all that. You're supposed to be horrified by the cheap shock effect of over-the-top gore. Oh and before I forget it, to make money on selling 'jesus-merchandise' like Gibson is doing, ('get your jesus nails here!') is of exceptionally lowe taste.

Sometimes I wonder if these people who praise Last Temptation of Christ actually saw it. It wasn't that good. And if you think Mel screws up some details like Pilate being too nice, what do you think Marty does by making Judas the noblest apostle and making John the Baptist 40 years older than Jesus when they were born six months apart? Last Temptation was like Jesus Christ Superstar with better cinematography and no songs. I haven't seen The Passion, I may not even like it, but it needed to be said.

Because it's Wednesday, which means I've got Angel, Smallville, and The O.C. to watch. I will get around to seeing "TPOTC" eventually though. I gotta' say, normally I too think that Moriaty is the voice of reason on this site. I tend to respect his reviews more than others, but maybe the writer's block affected him a little too much. Not only the Caravaggio reference, but Every Single Criticism he makes about the film, I've read in other reviews. He did change it up a little and attack Mel as a director instead of the attacking the score,as other reviews have. (The cinematography seems to be the only universally praised aspect of the film). Not saying Drew's a repeating bastard, just maybe he subconsciously borrowed a few things to get his feelings across. now, I like Mel Gibson, and I think he's OK as a director. Still, I think he's made Braveheart three times, in different time periods (the original, the American Revolution, and WW II), with varying degrees of success. I'm not expecting this one to be Braveheart IV, but I guess we'll see. I think what's really eating moriarty, and ultimately may annoy a lot of us, is the fact that this has all been another case of the Hollywood hype machine in motion. People who will love this film no matter what are going to buy tickets. People who will hate this film no matter what are going to buy tickets. And the rest of us are going to buy tickets (or download bootlegs) out of curiosity. Mel sunk a lot of money into his vanity project, what probably would have been a niche film playing in art houses, and fired up that big 'ol controversy machine to make him his money back. Now, I'm not saying it's all about the cash for him, I think Mel is very passionate about the story he wanted to tell, but I also think he wants as many people to see it as possible, and if that fills his bank account back up, well that's OK by him. .................. And for whoever mentioned it earlier, only one of those thieves mocked Christ on the cross, the other said "Truly you are the Son of God", unless you think he was just being sarcastic.

"If doesnt say that on Tuedsay the 17th of February Moses decided he would build a ship." Um, if you have read the Bible several times you may remember that Moses didna build any ships (that would be Old Man Noah)! Moses, he just parted the water and swaggered on through!

One other point of note: What is the reason for this film to be comprised almost entirely of the savage torture that was levied upon Christ in His final hours? It serves to show how, when faced with the most inhuman, brutal torture, with wounds heaped upon wounds, He held fast to faith, love and forgiveness.

Stands alongside Pasolini's book as the best religious movie ever (I know, we all loved TEN COMMANDMENTS, but that was for different reasons). It was never meant to be a strict recreation of the life of Jesus (as was clearly stated in the prologue of both the book and the movie) but rather using the historical figure of a man who, over the centuries, had been deified to the point of being otherworldly. LAST TEMPTATION was an attempt to bring that figure down to earth, to make him wholly human, so that we may better understand and empathize and see ourselves in his nobility and his sacrifice. Yes, the movie/book says. You can feel doubt, weakness, paranoia, depression, guilt, rage, and lust, and still be a good person, even a divine one. To me, being a secular person, that was a beautiful message that still resonates. I have not seen THE PASSION yet (I have tix to a friday screening), but I eagerly await the opportunity. Whatever the result, I have to give Mel Gibson props for putting his money where his mouth is. Sure, he stands to make it all back and then some, but that wasn't always the case in the life of this movie, so it was a gamble. How many directors would be willing to do that? Michael Bay? Brett Ratner? Hardly.

There are way too many people claiming this film is inaccurate without citing specific examples. If you believe this film to be inaccurate, I challenge you to state some specific ways in which it is so. And please don't give me "facts" based on assumptions and arguements from silence. "Pilate was a brutal man and wouldn't have blinked at condemning Jesus." Blah blah blah. It is a recorded fact that Pilate was too brutal, unable to keep a handle on the region, and warned by Rome for both. (hmmm, maybe that scene wasn't in the version of the film you saw, but it was in mine.) Could it be that Pilate knew there were no fence sitters when it came to Jesus (much as it is with Jesus now and with this movie). People were either wildly devoted to him or fanatically opposed. NOt the best position to put Pilate in. If he kills Jesus, the followers revolt. If he doesn't the detractors (many in the religious leadership) revolt. Hmmm, that's an easy decision. And for those who don't believe the Sanhedrin had any pull. There are examples of rulers doing things like placing shields with images in the temple (strictly against Jewish law). The Sanhedrin objected and the ruler removed the shields. In fact, I think Pilate may have even been the one who did that. All I ask for is people to state facts based on solid evidence.
Also the point of this film is to cause one to ask the question, "Why?" "Why did Jesus knowingly walk to his brutal death?" The answer is simple... love.
(P.S. I borrowed that last sentence from a book called "A Case for Christ.")

This is *the* archetypical talkback, anyone noticed that? We have right-wingers, left-wingers, atheists, Christians, Jews, non-denominationals, Pagans, etc... and yet, everyone falls into one of two camps: the reasonable people, and the unreasonable people. Funny thing is, being in a particular group from the first list has nothing to do with entry into either one from the second. Someone's going to call me out on being a left-wing atheist for being so "let's all love and understand each other", so what the hey, I'll admit to it straight up. But seriously, there are people here who are doing their best to understand the other sides... I'm impressed. It's almost annoying that there's wheat in this chaff, but still. Anyway, for my $0.02 (which I'm giving out of a piqued interest here) it seems like both a bunch of the atheists and religious people here are forgetting what the word FAITH means: belief in something that CANNOT BE PROVED. Faith can be a beautiful thing, I'm not dissing it, but if you've got faith... even in your atheism... well, don't pass it off as TRUTH. If you're sure you've got TRUTH, then good for you... you just might, I can't say (my personal belief is that human beings just aren't smart enough to know the difference, even if there really *is* one correct belief - I mean, look at all the other ones we believe just as strongly, and *they* must be wrong... the best we can do is to try to be good people, since somehow we all seem to know the difference between right and wrong.) Just don't be surprised when people who don't share your religion question your cosmology and call you out on 'evidence' - I mean, you're taking science and history on faith... don't get all defensive about it. You're choosing to believe something that can't be proved - that *you* believe should really be enough. Let's leave the religious debates out of the talkback, it's actually going pretty well and on-topic so far (although I seemed to fail at that... ^_^)

This movie is excellent in every aspect. Ther is not one weak scene, weak performance, or any weak link. Even if you dont believe in Jesus as the son of god, or even that he is a real person........ you cannot deny that power of one man going through hell and back because he thinks he can save mankind. I realy think that everyone who says "the only people who will like the passion are people who would like any jesus movie..." I couldnt disagree more. This movie is for everyone, i believe that the only people who WONT like it are the ones with the pre-concieved notions, and the deep rooted beef with christianity in general....... shame on you moriarty, how could you miss out on one of the most moving films in recent history?

It can't be overlooked that just as the religious right was having a bad time in the late 80s and, thus, used LAST TEMPTATION as a means to rally the troops AGAINST something, then, with all the sex scandal in the Catholic church now, they are using this movie, hyping it, pushing it to the forefront, in hopes of reigniting a religious institution that was being slammed on a daily basis by salacious headlines. I know that sounds a little conspiratorial, and may have no relevance in fact, but its crossed my mind.

Even though Mori's review could be seen as negative in a certain light, at least he was genuine enough to put the "this is my opinion, and not the 100% proven truth" label out there first.
And did it ever occur to anyone that just as the Bible was written only for people who believe, maybe Mel made this movie only for people who all ready believe?

This movie is not Anti-Semitic. No rational person would blame Jews for killing Jesus. He freely gave his life.
The Anti-Semitic comment is used to insult the people who will see this movie. Guilt by association.
The argument goes. 1) The movie is Anit-Semitic 2) The story of Christianity is not Anti-Semitic 3) People who see this movie may become Anti-Semitic 4) Therefore the people who go to see this movie are stupid and racist.
And about context. This is the passion of Christ. His suffering. Mel is either preaching to the choir, or he is hoping they will read the Bible to understand. How about that context?
And the silliest comment is to complain what Mel used the Gospels as source material. Mel believes the Word of God is true and God inspired. Why would he make changes because someone else doesn

Much as I hate to. I was raised in a Christian household with Parents who believed in the King James bible (and who, fortunately allowed me to develop my own beliefs and opinions). Point being, I never took any hatred for Jewish people from any of it. I never cared if someone was Jewish, Muslim, Methodist, whatever. I still don't. (although I do have a slight fetish for Asian chicks). When I was in grade school, I got to meet a Concentration Camp survivor. He talked to us in an assembly, sshowed us the blood-stained hat he used to wear, and the tattoos the Germans had put on him. It really made the whole story of the Holocaust a lot more real for me. Still, I didn't refuse to hang out with my blonde-haired, blue-eyed friends after school. And actually, the man made a point of how he had no hatred himself, but sure appreciated life more than most. so, where were all the critics kicking Speilberg in the ass for being Anti-Nazi when Schindler's List came out? (Funny how Poppa Gibson wants to condemn the Catholic leadership for being revisionist, when he wants to revise a little history himself). And what about The Patriot being Anti-British, or Dawn of the Dead being Anti-Zombie? Anyway, you get the point. Freedom of speech is great, as long as you're saying something I agree with. The Jews got kicked around by the Nazis, and they don't want anyone to forget it. (As well they shouldn't). But don't bring up any bad mojo in Jewish history, that's just wrong! Hell, the Boston Tea Party was a terrorist act, but fuck those Arabs up their stupid asses if they're gonna' fuck with the Grand ol' U-S-of fuckin' A! Besides, I'm assuming there's not a scene in "The Passion" where the entire Jewish race gets together, takes a vote, and decides as a people to crucify Jesus. People, make bad decisions. Politicians make bad decisions that affect a lot of people. And make no mistake, religious leaders were, and are politicians. But it was a long time ago, move on. I'll freely admit there were Caucasians in this country who kept black people as slaves. I'm not one of them. It was a fucked up thing top do, but not my fault. Don't hold it against me. y'know who's review on this movie I really want to hear? Kevin Smith's. I know a lot of you hate him, but he took a load of shit over Dogma, and I thought it was one of the most positive messages about religion I've ever seen on screen (wrapped in dick and Fart jokes). As Rufus said, It's better to have a good idea than a belief. People get killed over beliefs.

In the movie, as Jesus is being nailed to the cross he says "father forgive them.... they dont know, they dont know."
Then when he is already up on the cross he says "Forgive them father, do know not what they do".
Then at one point towards the end he says "Father, Why have you forsaken me?"
Then right before he dies he says "Father, into your hands i commend my sould.... It is accomplished."
then he dies...... its not TOTALLY word for word, but thats what he says.
then.....
dead body.......
Black screen......
Stone being rolled away from the tomb.......
RESSURRECTION WITH ONE OF THE MOST TRIUMPHANT THEMES EVER COMPOSED!

.... such much as I dislike some of Moriarti's other reviews (and I know that a lot of talkbackers would disagree with me on that) I think this review was very well-written and thought-out, and probably hit the nail on the head. I haven't seen this film yet but ever since I saw Life of Brian as a child I haven't been able to take christianity seriously so I probably won't see this film.

First of all, thanks to Mori for a thoughtful review. I've been reading reviews all day about this movie, and this is probably the most divisive movie I've seen in regards to reviews. People either literally love it or absolutely hate it. There's no middle ground here, so I suppose in the end, it should just be up to the person watching the movie whether they fall into the former or latter category, and shouldn't take potshots at someone who disagrees with their opinion.
As for the idea that Jews shouldn't get worked up about this movie because there wasn't such a ruckus over Roots or Schindler's List in regards to whites and Germans - get a clue. Black people in America, while certainly not being on completely equal footing as many white people, are virtually safe from the government and most local people from racism. Yes, there are still racist whites out there, but thankfully they are a small minority. Same with Germans. While there are some skinheads running around proclaiming their loyalties to Hitler, Germany by and large has moved past their Nazi past and are embracing the present (where in fact a sizeable number of Jews have recently moved to in the last 10 years). Jews, on the other hand, are still vilified as being in power of everything - we've already had bubbleheaded remarks about how Jews control the media in this forum already, and that's also not counting the dozens of Muslim and Arabic leaders who claim that Jews are controlling governments for their own agendas (when in actuality, it's the Arab leaders who are attempting to do that themselves). Jews are still hated as being part of the devil. Jews, in short, are still subject to the kind of level of racism that virtually every other denomination now looks back on. So for those who think that a movie like this can't do any kind of harm to the Jews, that it's all hype - I wish I could live in your world, where there was no racism, but unfortunately I live in the REAL world, where there is racism, and where people will take this movie the same way Mel Gibson took the gospels - at face value.

You know for both Moriarty and Harry, who saw this movie months ago, and who complained for so long that there were no movies worth reviewing, to not review this film until now smells wrong. This seems like Moriarty has simply stuck his finger in the air, see which way the wind was blowing, and then piss right into it. If everyone was panning it and a few arthouse lovers were embracing it, I think he would have been all over this flick, but he wants to be the one that didn't like it, the one that gets to smile and say "Daredevil, AOTC, those movies were amazing, but I just didn't care for POTC" Why? Because it gets him attention, it gets a bunch of talkbackers surrounding him hounding him to like this movie, hell it seems like the entire butt-numb-a-thon audience liked this movie, there were hardly any negative reviews. Yet Moriarty never said a thing, he was biding his time, why because he was lazy? Well he is, but that's besides the point, no cause he wanted to wait and respond to reaction. That is a bogus way to review a movie, at least have the nuts to put your comments out there when no one else is saying anything.

I find a few things rather odd about this whole hubbub over this movie...though I have not seen it yet, I am a Christian and I take the Bible as the Holy, perfect, and Inspired Word of God...that being said I find some of the criticicisms of this movie a little off...
1) Whether or not Jews had a legalistic definition of guilt assigned to them in the crucifixion of Christ is ENTIRELY IRRELEVANT - The message of the New Testament is ALL MEN (and women for that matter), past and present are/were responsible for the crucifixion of Christ. I believe as a Christian that I am JUST as guilty as anyone of that day for killing the Son of God. To focus on the Romans or the Jews for blame (and therefore shame) is useless. If someone wants to see why Christ was crucified all they gotta do is look in the mirror (this especially goes for me).
2) The fact that the movie only depicts the suffering of Christ should not be a point of critique people - Gibson never once said that it would be anything else. It was never advertised as anything else. His point is to show what another INNOCENT man did for the salvation of complete strangers that he loved them whether they loved Him or not - to the point that he accepts the blame for ALL sin in your and my place because we can never do enough good things in our lives to get to heaven. Through his actions, God no longer judges those who accept Christ by their sin but by the complete cover of Christ's sacrifice. Christians get to in effect claim that they are holy in God's sight BECAUSE Jesus paid the ultimate price for us - torture and death - for ALL our sin and his record of debt is paid in full. God gets the justice he demands for sin - death - and we get salvation that we are entirely undeserving of.
Catch that last part...? ENTIRELY UNDESERVING OF... THAT is why folks, that the suffering alone is so profound. He knew exactly what would happen to him and did nothing to stop it. Would you take punishment to this extent for strangers? I know I wouldn't or couldn't. Just some things to keep in mind when you get around to thinking about/seeing the flick.

Good job on being wrong on ALL counts, what do you base that on? The passion is anti hope..... wow, thats the stupidest thing i've ever heard. Making a faggy King Herod and an asexual satan has nothing to do with fetishes..... Honestly, if this movie was about someone other than jesus, you little frigs would have no problem with it. Quit all the anti semitism claims and admit that people are "offended" by the passion because it dares to be different and be a movie based on faith, not fact or fiction. I urge everyone to see the passion, and understand that the movie's message is about forgiveness, love, LOVING YOUR ENEMY, and NOT pointing fingers..... amen.

really, you "spiritualists" dont get it do you. Gibson took his movie from the 4 Gospels and the visions of the passion given to mystic Ann Catherine Emmerich. Not some new liberal (idiot) progressive who can really kinda sorta see new and interesting way of telling the story that bothers people at its core because it makes them think about what they do or dont believe and why. The movie bothers. All other wording about why it doesnt work for the 'spiritual' people is absurd. Here's a truth for you liberals. Just because you have your own version of Jesus doesnt make it the REAL version of what He said, did and came for. Period. TRUTH

The first time was about a month ago in Dallas at a large convention focusing on young adults that featured an advanced screening with Jim Caviesel himself. And even though it was a rough audio print of the film & it was played in a large church, not a movie house, it was an incredibly moving experience for all. I however seemed to be just about the only one who felt that Gibson missed the mark at showing the real reason behind why Jesus died. For the sins of the world. After viewing the completed version in the theatres today I still say it is a powerful film that will surely be remembered, but it simply wasn't as focused or evangelical in its approach as other "Jesus" films have been. Moriarty is right about this "tunell vision" approach because unless you already understand that Jesus went through all that pain & suffering willingly, to fullfill His father's plan to bring real grace for sinners of the world, that he did all of this for YOU & ME, then it will just seem a lot more like a story of another innocent man martyered for his beliefs. As a Christian I at least do know the rest of the story & therefore am deeply moved by the film. I only hope & pray that others will at least seek to understand more about this Son of God who willingly went through so much for all of us.
Amen.

I have yet to hear a self-professed devout Christian say 'ahhh, it was all right' or that it sucked. All I'm seeing are diatribes against people who DARE say they didn't like the film - that Hollywood is a liberal cesspool and people who don't like the film are in fact racist Jews, blah, blah, blah. It's as if people somehow can't separate their religion from this movie. Christian News Flash: if you're a Christian and think this movie sucks, you're not going to hell. In the end, IT'S A MOVIE. Jesus died for your sins, not so Mel Gibson could make a movie. Jim Caviezel is not actually Jesus. He's an actor being paid for his time. This is not the actual crucifixion: there were no cameras present at Christ's crucifixion. So those of you who base your defense of this movie on the strength of your faith need to regain your objectivity - slap yourself if necessary. These reviews are not a critique of your religion. I'm not seeing anyone say 'Christ's story is a freaking bore. What's the big deal with him, anyway?' The critiques I'm seeing are based on misrepresentations of Pilate, of the unrelenting gore and its lack of emotional depth. Sweet moses, gang, lighten the f up.

Actually, I appreciate hearing this side of things, because everyone else has been falling all over themselves to praise this as a transcendent work of art. I agree that a more 'human' portrayal of Jesus, as in 'Last Temptation' is probably 'better' for the crowd that hasn't yet come to accept Jesus christ as their personal savior, but I don't think Gibson was making a movie for that crew - he was making a movie for himself - he's a deeply religious guy, and like anyone who's deeply passionate about any subject, there's an assumption made that everyone else cares as much as you do. That's a mistake. 'The Passion...' may work for an already receptive audience, but for a heathen like me, well, I need a little bit more.

What I don't get is how the story of killing Christ can be interpreted as anti-semetic. Even if you would accept the interpretation of the 'Jew Trial', the guilt of Jesus' death still only lies with that handful of people who were there. How can you apply this to all jews? It's like condemning all Americans for not finding OJ guilty. This cry of antisemeticism sounds very much like a rocharch test respons. You see what you want to see.

Christians use the capital "H" as a sign of respect. You could compare it to putting Mr. or Mrs. in front of a name for respect. We do believe that we are talking about someone whom we respect immensely when we use it - why be offended when we choose to show respect to someone even if you don't choose to? -And everybody has a agenda dude...(yes this means you too).

I'm sick and tired of hearing about the vendetta that AICN seems to have against Paul Anderson and his "no-talent" status. Personally, I don't see anything wrong with most of Mr. Anderson's films. I have no beef with Mortal Kombat, Resident Evil or Event Horizon. The only movie that I had beef with was with Soldier. It wasn't due to any personal feelings about Paul Anderson. I JUST DIDN'T LIKE THE FILM!!! Harry and Moriarty have been swept away by the whirlpool that is Hollywood.

Jesus = dead horse (no pun intended). I just can't see the 'passion' of Christ any other way. This story has been told to me over and over and over again through my 26 years of life and the fact that there's a 'new' interpretation of it doesn't make it any more interesting to hear. I really have no desire to see this movie. How many versions of Peter Pan have there been? Dracula? You've Got Mail? Just because someone gives a story (or history, if that's how you see it) a facelift once in awhile doesn't change what's underneath and what's underneath is an aged, wrinkling, senile, burdensome grizzled geezer of a story that just needs to be put to rest. The tragedy isn't in the way Jesus dies for the benefit of the rest of us...the tragedy is that Jesus dies over and over and over again every time the story gets told at Easter or every time a Mel Gibson comes up with a 'new' interpretation of it all. Do we really have to kill Jesus that many times to understand the meaning of sacrifice? Are we that lame-brained that we have to beat that dead horse to get the point? I'm tired of Jesus. Give him a rest. Half of the world's problems today might have to do with how people hang for dear life onto sensibilities of the past that no longer make sense in the world today. Things change. People change. Truths change. Maybe the ideas of sacrifice and love are things we'll always need to understand, but this is 2004...can we please get at those ideas in a new way that we haven't all heard a million times? Uggh.

I wish people would ground themselves in the reality of this and every other movie: they are just movies.
I thought "Malcom X" and "JFK" were great films. Do I think they were historically accurate? No. Do I care? Somewhat, but there is no overwhelming need for me to need to know to go on about my daily existence.
If you thought this film was good, then great, you loved a well made piece of fiction. Hopefully no one will get hurt due to the existence of this film, and if they do it just proves that more people in the world have died over fighting about religion than any other reason in history.

Mel Gibson is a Nut Job. A deeply religious Nut Job. I don't understand why being deeply religous is any kind of excuse for anything. The 9/11 hijackers were deeply religious and felt very strongly about their beliefs. Mel has always been mad that Hollywood is run by Jews and Homos. This feeds into his bizarre Illuminati conspiracy theory about the Jews and Masons trying to take over the world. If that happened we woudl all be living in well built houses and not eating bacon. He now has the money and power to make a gore fest version of the Christ tale. Good for him. I won't go see it, even for free, because I hate gratuitous gore. Give me a break.

I consider myself a Christian, althogh not in the normal everyday way that others call themselves Christians. I believe in Christ, his life, his death, and the meaning and perpose behind it all. I do not believe in force feeding my beliefs to anyone, and I only talk about my religious convictions when asked. I am far from perfect, I cus way too much, and am currently cheating on my wife. I am addicted to Vicadin. I am wrong, I know it, but situations and circumstances have put me in this kind of situation. I will get flamed for saying I am a Christian and having an affair at the same time, but I am still only human. Will I go to hell for my actions? Well, who really knows? I personally do not believe in hell, nor do I believe heaven was ever intended for humans. Is there a reward after life? Perhaps. Maybe there is just death. I have thus far respected everyones opinion about this movie and such, except for those who call the Bible fiction. I will not argue peoples interpretations of the Bible, as there is no way to prove what was said word for word from one person to another. However, there is a whole lot of non biblical proof as to the Bible's historical accuracy. I have gathered several examples from several sources. If you are interested in reading more about these accounts, drop me a line and I will point you in the right direction. Here goes boys and girls: The Excavation of King Solomon's Gate at Tel Gezer, Israel
Archaeologically Proved a Biblical Passage
for the First Time in History.
The Pilate Inscription. It wasn't long ago when many scholars were questioning the actual existence of a Roman Governor with the name of Pontius Pilate, the procurator who ordered Jesus' crucifixion. In June 1961 Italian archaeologists led by Dr. Frova were excavating an ancient Roman amphitheatre near Caesarea-on-the-Sea (Maritima) and uncovered this interesting limestone block. On the worn face is a monumental inscription which is part of a larger dedication to Tiberius Caesar which clearly says that it was from "Pontius Pilate, Prefect of Judea."
The Megiddo Seal Bearing King Jeroboam's Name. It is very interesting that the Jasper Seal, found at Tel Megiddo bearing the name of King Jeroboam who ruled in the Northern Kingdom of Israel, would contain the symbol for their rival, the Southern Kingdom of Judah. But in examining all of the circumstances involved and seeing what the Bible says it is no wonder that the prosperous and victorious Northern Kingdom of Israel would boast with a symbol of their enemy.
The Tomb of Cyrus the Great. An inscription on the tomb of the great Persian monarch read: "O man, whoever you are and wherever you come from, for I know that you will come--I am Cyrus, son of Cambyses, who founded the Empire of the Persians and was king of the East. Do not grudge me this spot of earth which covers my body." - Cyrus". Is it true that Isaiah the Hebrew prophet mention Cyrus by name almost 200 years before he was born?
"A substantial proof for the accuracy of the Old Testament text has come from archaeology. Numerous discoveries have confirmed the historical accuracy of the biblical documents, even down to the obsolete names of foreign kings... Rather than a manifestation of complete ignorance of the facts of its day, the biblical record thus reflects a great knowledge by the writer of his day, as well as precision in textual transmission."
The Bible is essentially a religious history. Even those who wrote the Bible made it clear it was not a secular history, even though secular events are referred to. It is a book about God and his relationship with man. That cannot be proven or dis-proven logically. It is a spiritual matter. However, people and events mentioned in the Bible might be found in the historical writings of other nearby countries and in the historical records of the Israelite nations other than the Bible.
The earliest records of the Israelites were written on papyrus, rather than clay tablets that were used by other cultures at that time. Many of those papyri have been destroyed. The ancient Israelites, while they loom large in our eyes, were a small city state for the most part.
There is little proof of the use of slaves in Egypt or of the Exodus, of the conquering of the Canaanites by the Israelites or of King David

The Bible. The Talmud. The Koran. The Vedas. Words written over the bloody bones of hundreds of millions. Faith is NOT a wonderful thing. Believing in something that cannot be proven is simply mental illness. So, some simpleton gets a peaceful feeling when he prays. Is it fine to let the ill stay ill and not speak up? How come we don't say anything when even our elected leaders pray to something that does not exist? It is very frightening to think that Dubya might find Kazoo floating by his head one day and decide to nuke China. True peace can only come when mankind abolishes the childish practice of religion. Hopefully someday this will happen. The mentally ill will call it tyranny when the churches are closed, but at least they won't be killing each other over fiction. This is the life of our planet and our human family we're talking about. If some Wal-Mart truck drivin' gimmie-hat wearin, Nascar Watchin, black hating, fundamentalist Bible-belt inbred redneck and his frizzy-haired palefaced denim skirted wife have a problem with it, they will just have to be institutionalized or neutralized and their children sent to a foster family away from the abuse that a fear of eternal damnation is. That was a long sentence! Sorry....just venting. But seriously. Those of us that have actually studied history, science, anthropology, etc. should get together and really try to be evangelical about common sense. This world needs a pogrom. Open the camps, put in a Luby's and they'll fill themselves. March them by bayonnette to where they can no longer threaten the survival of the entire human race. Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Shintoists, the lady at Arby's that never puts the Horsey sauce in the bag even though she said she did, and whoever made those Quiznos commercials...TO THE CAMPS!!! Put some Shock in the gene pool.

Did you guys know that the guy who played the Apostle Paul in Jesus Christ Superstar - the movie, went on to become Paul Thomas the 70's and early 80's porn actor. Man, that guy layed a lot of pipe. Doesn't God work in mysterious ways. And Mel Gibson is just as much of a nut job as any liberal in hollywood. Nut Job!

Those of us who want to share with others about the movie "The Passion of the Christ" need to know that the crucifixion of Jesus was a willful act of God.
Here are three things to ponder: 1.) Jesus bore all of our griefs in the Garden of Gethsemene, 2.) That night in the praetorium, He was scourged and He took the stripes that allow our healing, mental and physical (Isaiah 53:4-5); 3.) On the cross, He bore all our shame and guilt. Then He said, "It is finished! Paid in full!" Then He gave up His spirit, and was buried and rose again from the dead for our justification ("just as if we had never sinned"). Yes, Jesus went through it all because of our sins, but no one took His life from Him.
Luke 23:46, "And when Jesus had cried out with a loud voice, He said,

It never ceases to amaze me that the "don't preach at me and judge me" crowd are the same ones crying for exactly that from this film. More preaching, theology, etc. All the while, you praise movies that 'don't spell it all out for you" and 'leave you to figure it out for yourself" but this movie gets bashed for doing those very things. Wah, wah. Read the gospel. Your so-called 'history is against this" arguements are tired and silly, not to mention unneccessary in a review for a FILM. Artistic liberty is allowed for everything, but not this? Actually, he admits to a couple of scriptual departures for the sake of narrative. The opening scene in the garden for one. That is there for people like you. Some background. Like LOTR:FOTR has ten or so minutes at the beginning as 'Tolkein for Dummies'. Big whoop. But there is NO historical liscense taken in this film. GET OVER IT. Stop reading dime-store historians and pass it off in a MOVIE review. Yes, Pilate was historically cruel. Ummm, look what he had done to Jesus. History also never said he was a flat, one-dimensional person either so why should his character be. Umm, and the gospels gel with historians (and each other for that matter www.tektonics.org), just not ones you prefer to read...but that makes their vision of history no more accurate than an apologetic's vision. Or Mel's vision. You may say the apologic views historical texts with a biased, well a secular historian is BIASED against it...don't say anyone is objective. There is no such thing. And certainly, there are no rules that HAVE to be followed in theater or film. He CAN film any segments he wants too. Not every film needs to be an epic 8 hr miniseries or three hour film if it deals with scripture. That is silly to impose. No backstory? Go read a Bible! Why does the intent have to be "get it all in there" when no other films are held to the same standard. By the way, people can take what they want from it whether or not you can or cannot see what it is. Don't generalize about those things. This review rings hollow....

here`s a list of potential candidates for those so-called "War for religion", and the main reasons why they were fougth: World War 2, Nazis invaded Europe for the supremacy of the white arian race, and Allies fought them for freedom and democracy; World War 1 was a greedy war started between rich europeans countries to test their military toys and to make big financial profits (for the winning clan); the invasion of America by europeans, while having a slight religious background, was started by the hunger for gold and later for natural resources; the Israeli-palestinian conflict, while having, too, religious background, is a political war based on the ultra-aggressive foreign policy of zionists since 1947 in Middle-east, and the uprising of palestinians against an oppressive israeli regime; the franco-prussian war was fought for financial and territorial gains; the Vietnam war was a territorial war based on the capitalist-commmunist dualism; the iraq-iran war was fromented both by USSR & USA to sell weapons and to weaken the political and military forces of the arab world (same thing for the Afgan-pakistanese war); Gulf War 1 and 2... oil; war of the two roses, nationalistic war orchestrated by political manipulators; and all the decolonisation wars were, well... decolonisation wars. So that rules out every major war that has happened since Christianism became dominant in the western world, except for the Crusades that had, okay, a strong religious background. What`s the conclusion of this? Wars are fought for GREED!!!

And the title will be "Scooby Doo 3: The Beginning". Hulk Hogan`s set to play the badass villain, wich will be part alien part robot. It`s rumored that his only line in the entire movie wil be during the final fight at the end, we`ll hear him shout: "This is not the end of The Beginning, this is the beginning of the end, BROTHER!" It`s gonna be a direct-to-video hit!

First, the gospels are different points of view, not different versions. Your point on that just bugged me. Second, I understand your point on context. But assuming that you have the basest of fundamental Christian knowledge by living in America isn't necessarily a reach for the filmmakers. Finally, because your opinion is in the mostly overwhelming minority, I'll just chalk it up to you went into it not wanting to like it. I readily admit I wanted to like it, and I acknowledged my bias going in. I think you fooled yourself into thinking you didn't have a bias. But you didn't fool me.

whether you like the movie or not...whatever, its YOUR opinion but something that shouldn't be forgotten is that it is afterall just a movie...nothing more
all the media "blitz" that's come from this is just so funny, protests? protesting a movie? gee...get a damn life..lol
if you dont like the movie, dont go see it...if you went to see it and hate it for whatever reason, then fine...hate it and move on...all this whining i'm seeing is just...well.. hilarious.
and then the whole jew thing...i mean damn, you do realize assuming the story is true, it happened over 2000 years ago..no one is alive anymore.. stop dwelling on the past, maybe jews are responsible, maybe they arent but why does it matter? its over, done with, cant change it. all these "minorities" bitch and moan about the past ...move on..get over it
all this over a movie, a movie based on stories written on lettuce who knows how long ago...damn people..damn...if god exists, it's laughing its head off on a regular basis at the stupidity of us...and thus we have rain

Feb. 25, 2004, 6:48 p.m. CST

by Tesarta

As a student and teacher of the New Testament, I'm quite happy that Moriarty expressed what most real scholars think about the film: it misses the point. It makes mistakes of history, and perhaps even worse, mistakes of reading from the gospels (that is, Gibson misreads the text). The gospels aren't history, they are theology, and while there are certain elements that are historically accurate, there are many more that aren't, and weren't meant to be, because that's not what the evangelists were trying to write. So on the level of history, Gibson's movie must fail necessarily, since he claims to be portraying the gospel accounts. But on the level of the narrative, it fails there, too. He conflates, misinterprets, misrepresents, confuses and ignores. Christianity has never separated the death from the resurrection, but Gibson does. The gospels don't really talk about the physical suffering of Jesus, but Gibson does. He has focused on the wrong things, theologically speaking. That he went into this saying he wasn't trying to portray history but the gospels only makes his error that much more egregious and incomprehensible.

Hell, why don't we make a movie about the last 12 hours of MLK's life and not mention civil rights. Or JFK or Lincoln and not mention he was the president. Or heck, they should have skipped all the exposition in the first Harry Potter movie, after all "everyone" knows the story already. Mori, nice writing by the way.

Jesus was a jew thru and thru. The disciples were jewish. The whole frickin' bible is about jews. Not ONE single book is written by someone who is not a jew. I went to seminary and I studied the bible for 10 years. I am actually shocked that people are worried that the story of Jesus is anti-semetic. Any Christian who pays half attention in most mainstream churches will have learned this. I don't think anyone is worried about anyone but Christians becoming anti-semetic because Jesus was killed by jewish people. But only serious Christians would care and they would know better already. No one else cares who killed Jesus. It's like becoming anti-american if it turned out that some politian was behind the JFK assasination. It doesn't make sense.

"It was a mediocre film at best, derived from a sensational work of fiction"... ouch.. seems like someone is trying real hard to make a name for themselves.. and that folks, is the reason I leave his name out. I must admit though, I think its pretty funny.

While I still have not had the oppurtunity to see the movie, I am very enthusiastic about it. I am a Roman Catholic, and thus I think my experience watching the film will be different from others, and i think thats an important thing to remember about it. While I think the movies should not be made for only a certain group, the story of Jesus passion and ressurection can not fully be appreciated by people of other religions. I respect everyones opinion about the film, but for me what Is going to make me go watch this movie is the opinion of other people of my same faith, becuase they go into it with the same attitude as I do. And so far most reviews from Christians are glittering. As far as the accusations of the film being anti-semetic, its hard to understand how people can accuse it of being that. As Mel Gibson said, only Romans and Jews were there, so he cant blame Norwegians. Jesus died to forgive us all from our sins, and if you think the movie is anti-semetic, then your problem is with the Bible and Christianity. Im going to see the movie this weekend, and personally I can't wait. I think its important for all Christians to be reminded of the suffering Jesus endured for us and the ultimate sacrifice he endured.

Critics of this movie aren't arguing that the movie is anti-semitic because it depicts the Passion, but because it could incite anti-semitic behavior.
Yes, movies like Saving Private Ryan are Anti-German. The point is that reasonable people aren't afraid that people who have just viewed Saving Private Ryan are going to go on an anti-German pogrom. Whereas Passion plays have allegedly inspired anti-Jewish behavior.

All this 'Gibson will never work in Hollywood again' is bunk. First, he'll show others how much money can be made outside of Hollywood...and other bigger names in la-la land will be encouraged to do thier own thing outside the studio system. This is a good thing. Forget the religious stuff. People will see that if they make a movie without studio interference, respect the audience, and if it is based on a true story, relegious subject, history, etc...and respect the source material it will excel. This will be a good thing for film in general. But those things are key. Books are one thing, but the Da Vinci Code movie will bomb at the box office. The Best Seller list doesn't hardly ever translate to box office success. Left Behind anyone? Cold Mountian? Mandy Moore movies? And so will any other 'Bible' movie bomb that doesn't ring true to the subject matter. I can't wait for Hollywood versions of Bible films following this trend that appears to be a bankable endeavor (The Passion). If it shows comptempt or strays one bit into ambiguity, it will fail. I know it is coming. I can't wait to see the 'Hollywood' attempts fail. To finally show that you either do it right or not at all. Only because the Passion is real, respectful to the source, and uncompromising does it gather the attention and the support it deserves. This same dedication and commitment should be put into all movies regardless of subject matter. Anyway, when the box office tally is totalled in six months or so and DVD sales begin to be the hot ticket, Mel will be the most called actor/roducer/director in Hollywood. And he'll be regarded as a genieus. No major actors or exec's (even the Jewish ones) are holding thier tongue in the public arena. That goes to show they are holding out for the final verdict before they comment. Which the verdict will be, Mel is the man! (but this will be based on the dollars alone).

There are A LOT of thoelogy scholars out there.. Or there are alot of plebs who know how to use Google to quote bible passages... Try searching on "YahWEH!", maybe you'll find some good stuff over there you can spew to the movie review reading public. Because god knows we all need you to point us in the direction of Jesus.. As for jumping the religious bandwagon, that's like saying because you like one type of car, you can't like thier competitors model.. it's all about feeling things out and finding which is best for you, just don't follow something because your mom and Dad brought you up to believe in thier spiritual structure. If there is no one religion that encompasses absolutely everything you believe in (and no doubt there will be few that DO).. then fill your boots with as much Qur'an, Talmud, Veda, Bible, whatever! as you like and work it out.. It doesn't matter what God you believe in as long as you have a belief in a higher power, but having your entire belief system based on a MAN (ie. Christianity in all its forms) is like taking the Lord of the Rings too seriously in my opinion. Jesus' story and in fact the entire Bible itself is a wonderful morality tale, with some important values and ideas relevant even today.. but worshipping a man, does that not go against "Thou shalt not worship any God before me"?... While I'm on it, the ten commandments, are they generic moral common sense, or are they more?. I think that the whole Murdering, stealing, coveting your Neighbours ass thing is on the money, you've got my vote, but when I am told which god I should worship, like say, in a court room, its basically telling the billions of followers of non-christian based religions, that they not only don't have the proper respect for the law, should they choose to NOT swear by a book that is to them, a work of fiction, but they're also saying that they do not recognise thier constitutionally protected right to religious belief. So why is it, that a proclaimation in the constitution is not backed up by our courts?. It represents the sanctioning of a particular religion and the seggregation of anyone else who doesn't fit OUR mould. To me.... That seems wrong. We all can believe what we want to believe, and I know what it sounds like, but I assure you I'm not a touchy feely bleeding heart, its that I have a better understanding than most inward looking types. It is because my friends are Jewish, my friends are Christian, my friends are Muslim, and I even have little chocolate covered hindu friend :) and believe it or not but we discuss religion from time to time, and we all get something new out of it, we look and listen and invariably say "Hey that makes sense".. It is from that understanding of other environmental, cultural, and spiritual backgrounds, where I have found a belief system. I believe in an almighty, but I also believe that the bible, and in fact most religious texts, are not stereo instructions. They are not to be followed to the letter or else your life wont work, it is not a blueprint on how everyone should live, but they do give you the tools to shape out a life to suit you. "Bless'd are the Geek, for they shall inherit the Earth"

I was quoting from David Denby's review, actually. Hence the quotation marks, and credit to Mr. Denby at the end. As to my own opinion, I know the Bible quite well thanks very much, and I feel that what Jesus did in his life is much more important than the details of his bloody death. The fact of it is an important part of the story, yes, but celebrating the "passion" above and in exclusion to all else gives way too much credit to Roman brutality as the progenator of "grace". I'd go further than that as far as the fixation on death/resurrection that came into the Christian ethos generations after the actual death of Christ (early Christians were more interested in passing on his teachings than passing out crucifixes, and basically came to believe that Jesus lived such a holy life on Earth that God elevated him to his right hand in heaven upon his death) but it's somewhat wasted in this forum. Read a few books on early Christianity if you want to learn about it, BM. ;)

You guys proclaim to know so much about the bible, then what about revelation, wheres its prophesized that the goverment in their search for peace and security will turn on religion . it WILL happen, never before has there been more talk about religion, and its only a matter of time before those religious terrorist turn this country into one big martial law.
then you'll have your precious peace and security at the expense of religion AND your freedom, you just wont realize it until its too late

For the last time, don't post if you havn't even bothered to watch the movie. The ammount of uneducated idocy is staggering. I am very confident that I can rebut any criticism you cynics out there may have... provided you actually know what the hell your talking about. I do not, however, have the time to give the world a free class on the storytelling nuances employed by the movie.
Kimberleigh - You talk alot but said nothing. You said "I am a firm advocate for not letting facts get in the way of the truth." What is that supposed to mean? You don't like truth, honesty... facts? You prefer lies and deciet? You thought the movie horrid... why? You said the movie is not historically or scripturally accurate... HOW? You called it an innaccurate piece of trash... WHY? Your comments mean NOTHING without a supporting argument. Let's tackle two topics that I keep hearing brought back up in the media, and hopefully anyone who reads this will walk away smarter for it. 1) The nails in the hands: Many people claim to believe that the romans crucified people by nailing through the rists, where the bones offer greater support, explaining that the nail would tear through a human hand. This is an excellent lie in that it contains some fragments of truth. But, like the argument of 'separation of church and state', it is being totally abused and misinterpreted. When a nail is hammered through two hands and two feet there is more than enough support to hold the body up. Furthermore, those being crucified could also be supported with the ropes used to tie the beams to their backs. The majority of support was placed on the feet, which were nailed to a platform. The idea was that the prisoner would have to push themself up to breath while being held in an extraordinarily painful & uncomfortable position. Crucifixion was also NOT an exact science and was used throughout the empire. Generally the nail would be put through the hand because that is a more sensitive spot. Should a hand pull off it was a small matter to nail it back on through the wrist. Some soldiers could also forgoe the hand altogether for wrist, should they be more merciful and/or experienced. Since the Bible says the nails were through the hands, then that means, in black and white, that the nails were put through the hands in this instance. 2) The second argument I've been hearing is claim the Pontious Pilate wasnt mean or bastardly enough. Pilate was notorious for being brutal and merciless, especially in his treatment of the rebellious Jews (Who werent happy about the Roman occupation, to say the least). His exploits were not well recieved by Caesar, who warned him twice (up to that point) to mind how he acts. Then an angry mob brings this man before him, a man well known in those parts as a dearly loved holy man and prophet... and the mob wants him killed. He can find no wrongdoing... but he knows that these Jewish leaders want this man crucified because his teachings threaten their power. If Pilate does NOT kill the man, the Leaders could instigate a riot. If he does kill the man then his followers could istigate a riot. It's a lose-lose situation for Pilate so he tries to pass off the responsibility to someone else. When that dosnt work he says "Fine, do what you want, but I'll have none of it." Thus releasing himself from any blame. Pilate was saving his own ass.
So... does anyone else have some questions they'd like answered?

Anathema and Choggle Pants both sound like wonderful rational people with lots of love to give. If more people were like Anathema and Choggle Pants the world would be a virtual utopia. I'm especially impressed with Anathema's idea to re-institute sweat camps for anyone who proclaims faith. Choggle pants noted how "distressed" he was and I feel that his concern is terribly moving. You get em' guys. Tell us why the sky is blue and give us the meaning of being. heil SCIENCE BOOKS!

I say the movie today, and it is just pure stunning. All the reports of it being way too violent or antisetimism, are just funny to me. How is it making Jewish people look bad, when the romans are the ones beating the shit out of Jesus???? The only bad thing about the Jews were the high priests, who feared him and wanted him killed because they maybe feared their futures??? I dont know the bible very well, but a whole ton of those reaction shots to jewish peasants, their faces looked pretty horrified to me.....kind of like they didnt agree with the priests? Hell, even some of the romans werent all that bad. Pilot did what he had to to make sure he stayed in his power. Pretty cold if you ask me. Also, the violence.....where was it? Nothing we havent seen before and miles away of the bloodbath that was SAVING PRIVATE RYAN. Both happened, so why do we need a chessed down version of Passion? Would it please more people if there was no blood and Jesus was singing showtunes while up on the cross like in Jesus Christ SUperstar???? I find it funny that this guy says this movie is too violent, yet KILL BILL was #2 pick last year becuase of its.....violence! Loser dumbass! GO see THe Passion, cause its way better than any fanboy movi8e could ever be. Maybe Morority would have liked it better had their been no blood and everyone lived happily ever after like in BORED OF THE RINGS!!!!!!!!!

Having said that, please join my Legion Of Supervillains. We call ourselves "LOS-ers" (pronounced lOH-sers, how else would it be pronounced?). You must have special powers that do not translate to making facial contortions, double-jointed poses, or farting. Oh, and you must be inherently evil. No superheros allowed. All new hires will get a free cookie once my mom finishes baking them tonight. You must make your own costumes as I did. Free threading needle and use of my mom's sewing machine for those who need it. RSVP.

And you know that how, Mori? Because of a history book you read or program you saw? Or maybe you were there??? The fact is, you don't know for sure what happened at the time, and neither do I. The difference between us is that I can admit I don't know for sure. I don't say that what I think is FACT, unlike you.

The true last words of Christ are contained in the little known apocryphal "Gospel according to Charlie Murphy" and they were recorded in Latin as follows: "Riccus Jamus Sum, canis!" Let he who hath understanding reckon the meaning of those words.

While I agree with some of the nitpicking Mori did, it's just that, nitpicking. I have my own gripes, but I still loved the movie. I'd give it 5 out 5 stars. It was a touching and moving picture. It's art in high form, whether you call it disgusting or not. I found the movie to be a beautiful portrayal. Yeah it got ugly and dark, but the brutality of any man is dark and ugly, especially Jesus'.
I also commend Mel for showing the supernatural side, I felt it was intriguing and made the role of Satan important and mysterious. In your speak, it flirted with the dark side (an obvious Star Wars nod for ya).
I am now a strong supporter of this film, and am recommending it to all people over the age of 13. I don't think kids under 13 should be allowed to see it, it is pretty strong, and even 13 year olds should have a talk with parents before and after. This was a fine picture, and thank you Mel for giving the world such a beautiful peice of art.

And sorry but it was just OK. I didn't hate it but it didn't blow my mind or anything. I wasn't especially moved by it because I didn't give a shit about the guy that was getting the beat down. (That ho of his, Mary Magdalene looks like she could use some "comforting," though. heh heh). It was just two hours of a hippie getting his ass beat. What was the fucking point? I WOULD like some of whatever he was smoking, however. That must be some pretty kind bud that makes you see devil babies and think you're Jesus.

Mary the mom is flat out pretty, but after considering all opinions, Christian, Jewish, Athiest, Nihilist, dickwads, geniuses, nerds, hipsters, Cannabalistic Humanoid Underground Dwellers and such, I believe...after watching both the uncut and cut version...after hours of debriefing myself through Zen meditation and saying "I want to be good" over and over, I believe I would most want to fuck Monica Bellucci...and it doesn't even have to be in the ass, although I would love for it to include the ass. Those times seem sad and cruel, I'm sure glad there were hotties around to keep up the esprit de corps.

Lizzybeth: "As to my own opinion, I know the Bible quite well thanks very much, and I feel that what Jesus did in his life is much more important than the details of his bloody death."____Sorry, Lizzy....you're own comment betray your incomplete understanding of not only the Bible, but the totality of Jesus' mission & sacrifice. Once again, you can't isolate the teachings from the sacrifice. They're inextricably woven together. As others have stated, the movie is "The Passion of the Christ", which tells you from the get-go that this will not be an exhaustive overview of Jesus' entire three year ministry. Once again, read the prophecy found in Isaiah (chapters 52 and 53 specifically) that spell out the necessity for Jesus' righteous life and brutal death. The crucifixion of Jesus was not simply an *aspect* of His life, but the primary *reason* for His life, death, and Resurrection. In short, Christ was born to die. By the way, since you know the Bible quite well, thank you, what are the important aspects of Jesus pre-Passion life you feel Gibson should have emphasised over His "bloody death"? His entire public ministry was beset by prosecution in one form or another (the crucifixion being the ultimate expression of this rejection), with even the quieter moments revealing a stark awareness of His upcoming sacrifice. From Genesis 3:15 and onward, the entire Biblical narrative is driving toward Jesus' sacrifice and resurrection, making the crucifixtion the culmination of God's entire redemptive plan. I think you'd be hard pressed to find anything else more "important" than that. By the way, any specific Christian history books you'd recommend to me? Let me guess: Shelby Spong?

Ok. anyone talking about how hot monica belluci is needs to stop acting 9 and go to a porn site.
secondly, here's the actual point everyone. Jesus either WAS the SAVIOR of the world or He was NOT. There is no "well, He's just another type of religion, or great guy to believe in - and its cool no matter what". He either is or He is not. All of the liberal, context, progressive theological thinkers etc, are wrong. its simple. And you should all think about this. Jesus - is the only "savior" who's story makes no normal human sense. Which actually throws it into the realm of that which probably is NOT made up by humans -- in other words - it is true and He is the savior. The world will soon understand this. Look into "Medjugorje". and the 10 secrets.

Donnie Darko made me actually think for weeks, even now, about atonement and redemption; The Passion, sadly, is largely forgettable, even hours later. And DO I believe that Jim Cunningham IS the fucking anti-christ, or at least, people like him, and they are legion. Beware the mark of the self-help beast!

Boy. Where the hell do you begin? No matter what one says, it seems as though in this particular case, every single possible opinion is accounted for, and therefore, rendered almost irrelevant by the sheer variety. I will, however, add another one anyway. I saw the film today, and although I disagree with Moriarty, I will admit that I did feel a bit of a mental itch when it came to the fact that we are presented only with immeasurable suffering and not with enough context. I think just a little bit more than the flashbacks would have sufficed. However, I believe that you have to know, going in, whether you're Christian or not, that a film entitled THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST, is going to deal mainly with the events leading up to the crucifixion of Christ. I also believe that Moriarty is talking out of his ass, and has no damned knowledge of recent archealogical discoveries or of the true historical context of the Bible(he's merely assuming, based upon knee-jerk liberalism cause yes kneejerking works on both legs) based upon these discoveries. As for the cries of anti-semitism, it is a total crock of shit. OF COURSE, the Jewish leaders of the time wanted him crucified because he discredited their own position IN MUCH THE SAME WAY MANY LEADERS IN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH ITSELF ARE NOW. It is like this in all religious... Jesus was telling all that the true lessons of his life and the real meaning of religion was being lost in the practice of that religion and in the worshipping of religious figureheads who have become products of their own vanity, right down to their wardrobe. OF COURSE, in such a story, some of the Jews will see this and either re-configure the way they practice their own religion, Judaism, or they will see Christ as the Messiah and become followers. How can it be ANY OTHER FUCKING WAY? Seriously? What other way could this obvious choice, by all Jews in the immediate vacinity of Christ at the time be represented? Those responsible for the crucifixion were HUMAN BEINGS filled with fear and hatred, and this lead to the crucifixion, just as the NAZI'S WERE HUMAN BEINGS ALSO FILLED WITH FEAR AND HATE AND A LUST FOR POWER. You cannot condemn the religion or an entire people, but the individuals and witnesses involved according to their varying degrees of responsibilty. And even then, Christ says we are to embrace our enemies. Any atrocity committed in the name of religion is a HUMAN FAILURE, not a religious failure. Religion is about aspiring to become a better person, and even if you think it's all hogwash, on some deep level it was meant to serve as a controlling factor in society so that all men would not heedlessly act upon their most base instincts, thus producing anarchy and probably extinction. Now that some of us have secular laws and institutions to control criminal behavior and keep society in check, is religion still necessary? Does it provide something other than what it is essentially, at its most basic level, meant for? These are the questions that all of us must answer for ourselves, and no amount of bitching and screaming and telling one another they are insane by both religious zealots on one side and atheists on the other is going to change the central dilemma faced by the individual. You see this film, read all of these posts, read the reviews, talk with friends and family, are probably affected in some way on some moral or spritual level either negatively or positively, and then must begin making decisions. Like I said, it can be overwhelming, but at least it's sincere. I also want to just say that for Mori to call Mel Gibson a pedestrian filmmaker is totally fucking ignorant. I don't care if you hate this film, technically and artistically, it is some kind of an achievement, and that is no easy trick in the world of the cinema. If Gibson is a pedestrian filmmaker, then what the hell kind of writer is Mori? Must be about the level of a worm pulling up it's slimy, pointy end to wish it had eyes so that it could look upon the totem pole of screenwriters that stands in the way of its own ego.

Liberal Democrats. They now have found a way to divert the anti-semetic charges away from themselves and pit Jews verses Christians.
First, Christians and conservatives in America are THE ONLY PEOPLE WHO DEFEND JEWS AND ISREAL. The fact that the media has pitted one group against another is sad becasue it is completely displaced. Christians have long defended Jews and Isreal against persecution. Blah, blah some fanitics Blah, blah...But on a whole I am correct. Christians realize Jesus died by choice. Period. So no anti-semetism there. So where is the real anti-semetism in America? Non-Jewish liberals. Even liberal Jews turn a deaf ear when their gentile buddies start screaming about those EVIL Isreali's and those damned religious people's moral agenda's. And them damned Ten Commandments everywhere.
Christians and conservatives in America are the only ones who come to their defence against the Nazi, Jew-Hating Liberals in America. Lets look at some facts:
1. Non-Jewish Liberal's are against any war or conflict in the Middle East where the U.S. attacks any nation or radical group that lobs missles or sets off explosives in Isreal.
2. Non-Jewish Liberals celebrate when a Palastinian sets off a bomb and kills innocent lives in Isreal. And say we should tolerate their terrorism because those Damned Jews in Isreal have it coming...
3. They support Palastine radicals and hope that Isreal tears down walls and government so Palastinians can freely pick off Jews in Isreal...and eventually run the whole country.
4. They hate any religion, especially Christian and Jew, that try to instill any values to their children though faith. They distort their views and belittle them in the mainstream media.
It is sad when liberals who secretly despise religion in general, can orchestrate division between two mainstream relegions who have a long standing harmony and friendship in this country. Hilary Clinton is rejoicing somewhere in New York. SO-CALLED TOLARENT LIBERALS ARE THE REAL ANTI-SEMETIC NAZI JEW-HATERS IN AMERICA. Of course they will deny this, but pay attention and you will see this JEW-HATING agenda of the left. Sadly, they have sucessfully diverted attention elsewhere off of themselves. How sad it is when Colin Quinn is the last voice of reason in Amreica. By the way. about the story of the film. Catholics have to swallow that there have been some bad Catholics in their history (Crusades) and today (molesting Priests). Muslims have to deal with some horrble people that sprang from their religion (Osama). Can't Jews handle that someone like Caiaphas and others around Jeruselam in the 1st century had a motive to supress conflicting religious beleifs and weren't Kosher themselves at one point in history? I think they can handle (according to the scripture) a 'small crowd' and some high priests who did not show Jewish religion in a postive light in history at one point. I think they can accept that...or should and move on. ALL RELIGIONS have bad moments in their past and even in their present. GET OVER IT EVERYBODY...CATHOLICS/CHRISTIANS, MUSLIMS, JEWS, WHOEVER...

And you are going to pretend that doesn't affect him? Another example of religious people being blatantly ignorant of some facts and pretending other myths *are* facts to believe in something to explain the (as of yet in our history) inexcplicable. Ok, can someone explain this simple point to me: the 4 Gospels are thought to be written between 30 and 110 years after this death occurred. This is from religious scholars and theologians own mouths and pain-staking research. No one, not even the most ardent Christian, has any shred of evidence that these were written, say, within 5 years of this death. WHY WOULD NO ONE WRITE ABOUT A MAN WHO CAN DO THINGS NO OTHER LIVING MORTAL HAS EVER BEEN ABLE TO DO TO-DATE (AND SINCE IT TURNS OUT) SUCH AS RESURRECT DEAD PEOPLE AND WALK ON TOP OF WATER, ETC? You are going to tell me this wasn't something you would sit the fuck down and make notes on when you saw it happen?? I mean, forget that these claims of miracles have zero basis in reality to begin with. Why would no Jew (which Jesus would be btw), no family, no government, no average Roman write down ANYTHING about this guy at the time he was alive and this all happened? Only a couple Rmoan historian mentions a guy named Cristos was crucified by Tacitus and a couple other historical recordings, just like any other recording of the ho-hum happenings of the day (yes, crucifiction was fairly common). And *that* is enough to convince a modern person he was supernatural and can do things that have no basis in any facts at all - just because insanely biased priests...SAID SO? Are people that desperate to put a face on the unknown that they stoop to such idiotic levels (answer: apparently). I just love arguing with religious people since they can't back up anything they say is literally true, and at the same time selectively have to ignore anything scientific like carbon dating and dinosaur fossils as to explaining why the earth really isn't a few thousand years old, The Bible was completely and utterly written by priests with a specific agenda. It's a book of FICTION meant to get a bunch of sheep just like the ones still all over the countryside in places like Iraq and Iran to convert from Judaism to Christianity. How anyone can possibly think it is a balanced account of reality is just boggling. I guess Superman really exists and can literally fly too, because there are books, comic books, and even movies (!!!) about HIM, and not even that long ago!! Wow, somewhere in the last 50 years a man existed who could actually FLY!! Because someone somwhere...SAID SO!! That's even cooler than turning wine into water, don't you think? Let's worship Superman next.

I watched a few minutes of that has-been Dennis Miller's new show (a lame ripoff of Real Time w/ Bill Maher) and he had that wanker David Horowitz on trying to defend this Jew-baiting piece of shit. Both Gibson and Horowitz have links to Holocaust deniers. Gibson's father claims six million Jews just moved to America and Australia. Horowitz ran an op-ed piece on his website by Michael Boatman. Boatman was an aide to Rep. Helen Chenoweth, but was fired after writing that Anne Frank's diary was a forgery. McWeeny, you're right about one thing: People who claim there's nothing anti-Semitic in this movie are either ignorant, in denial, or lying. Fuck Mel Gibson! That balding, fag-bashing, Jew-baiting creepy fucking midget is a piece of shit and so is his movie.

The fact that you can't spell "anti-SemItic" on multiple attempts proves you're dumb as a fucking stump. Right-wing "Christians" want Jews to migrate to Israel for two reasons: (1) They don't want them in this country because they think Jews control the media, Hollywood, banks and everything else. (2) In order for Jesus to return, Israel and the Jerusalem Temple must be fully "restored". Then Jesus will return and kill all the satanic infidels. Jews will either accept Jesus or burn on a pyre AND in hell. So yeah, hardcore bible-thumpers support the migration of Jews to Israel and Palestine -just as lions support the migration of zebras and wildebeest to the Serengeti Plain. Both are just bloodthirsty predators stalking their prey. So fuck you!

With zero intent at flaming anyone I wanted to point out the silliness of the above statement. We all believe in things that cannot be proven. For example, the big bang cannot be proven by science because none of us saw it happen nor can we duplicate it. It's a theory in a chain of theories to try to explain our origins. I'm glad it exists. I'm glad science is trying to explain things outside of religion. Kudos to the scientists of the world. However, the big bang theory cannot be "proven" scientifically just like the theory of Creation cannot be proven scientifically. Really, it all boils down to personal philosophy. Whichever philosophy makes more sense to you is the improvable theory you accept and look for evidence to support. Only the ill informed believe they can "prove" their particular philosophy (whether based on science or religion....it all boils down to faith). True science admits this. True religion admits this. I happen to be a Seventh-day Adventist Christian. I also accept the fact that I can never prove to anyone that God exists. And thankfully, it's not my job.
Peace,

Feb. 26, 2004, midnight CST

by ErrantTwin

I have to agree with ebonic plague; this talk back has been high comedy. But also pretty disheartening... from people who proceed from false assumptions, employing faulty logic, on to people who are so completely out of touch with anything resembling facts, I find myself wondering why I bother to read it all, much less post a response. I suppose it's because some things are simply too stupid to ignore. So here we go:
DUDERINO, to call you a half-wit would be giving you twice the credit you deserve. Jews ARE white, you moron. Caucasian. But then, what would I expect from someone retreading that tired Jewish-media conspiracy nonsense? Most Hollywood villains are British or German? What, are there no British or German Jews? Jackass. And blacks are never portrayed negatively? What planet are you living on? Ah, the poor, beleaguered white man... good thing we've got you looking out for us. Fucking imbicile.
And TRUTHALWAYS... no denying that Christ either was or wasn't the saviour. Those are the choices (stated with somewhat more eloquence by C.S. Lewis). But your remark that "Jesus - is the only 'savior' who's (sic) story makes no normal human sense. Which actually throws it into the realm of that which probably is NOT made up by humans -- in other words - it is true and He is the savior"

Feb. 26, 2004, 12:05 a.m. CST

by ErrantTwin

And because I like to laugh at myself, I'll point out that in the very sentence in which I chastise jdpritchett for his spelling errors, I mis-typed the word 'going'... of course, it's only a typo and not a reflection of ignorance, but still...

I can understand why someone can see how this film fails at telling a complete story within the time your in the theatre until you leave. i wish there was moe time to develop the characters more. But the movie is more than just a full story told to you within 2 hours. This is a scene in Jesus's life. After watching the film and while watching it, I felt that i should know more about Jesus, not just about what he did but also knowing him personally.
Most of my life i believed that there is a god. I've gone through long periods in my life where i don't. Still do. But watching this film just gave me a better understanding of how important his death was. Watching a man who loved people and only wanted to help everyone, a man so kind get brutally tortured and ridiculed was very hard to watch. But i cant help but feel that i have to watch this. He died for my sins, whether you believe it or not, that man was thinking about everyone there and in the future. when he was beaten down, he would get back up and take it, and pray for the people who were doing this to him.
Im sorry that this is such a rant but i cant really describe the feeling i got after watching the film. It was more than just a film, it helped me appreciate what jesus did for everyone. It gave me more of a feeling of who Jesus was, he wasn't just a god like figure, he was human, he had a mother, he didn't want to go through the pain, but his passion for us is just so strong that he knew he had to do it.
I feel that this is a very important time for us to see in Jesus's life. If i could pick on point in his life that shows how much he cared for you, it would be this.

No joke. You waited until the movie was basically universally panned by every critic on earth, THEN you publish your negative review. *SNORE* I come to AICN to hear things FIRST - not to hear things repeated.

1)Why is it that Mel Gibson can make such a "big" film about Christ with his own money and all the churches can't? 2)Why did the big studios not want to distribute the film knowing what it means to alot of ticket buyers? 3)Who is running these studios?

"Think about this for just one second. If Christian doctrine is correct and all I have to do is believe that Jesus was the son of God, died for my sins, go to church for about an hour a week, honor the 10 commandments, live life by the golden rule, pray, and educate my soul then I receive eternal life in heaven. If I am wrong and their is no God, no heaven/hell, and no life after this then I die and rot in the earth. Either way I win so why take the chance? I would rather follow the Christian doctrine and take the chance that God does exist then not follow it and go to hell. If God does not exist, then nothing happens. Either way, I win." - QUOTE FROM ABOVE. This was one of the dumbest ramblings I've ever seen in print. So, just to be safe, you'll waste time believing in fairy tales? Why don't you make animal sacrifices too? Just in case the Roman Gods are the true deities? Or how about mummifying your dead freakin' corpse just in case Ra and Anubis are the true deities. Yes, I think I'll waste my time in Church because, heck, ya never know. Dumbass!

Looks to me like Gibson was more inspired by Lucio Fulci's ghost than the HOLY GHOST, but this movie get high marks for originality and general beauty regardless of the large amount "what about that guy?" moments. (remember the old Letterman skit? There were a few inexcusable quick crowd shots with guys who looked like they should be extras in a monty python movie making those damn crazy faces like that.)
You can tell that Mel surrounded himself with a lot of talented people but it looks to me like some of his Hollywood buddies helped him out a little where he didnt need it. IE-The dissident Pharisees, the germanic looking psycho guards, and the seriously downplayed ressurection.
He missed a big pay off with that ending. ~oh yea! the devils mad! jesus really stuck it to snake tail booger!~ the IT IS ACCOMPLISHED moment from Scorsese's movie is way for spiritually and cinematically fullfilling than Gibson's ~chillin' in the cave la di da~ ending. but thats just me. oh yea and the Anti-Defamation league has been sued for defamation and lost several times, so dont go believing everything you read moriarty...

I watched "the making of The Passion" documentary on the PAX channel yesterday and I found out some interesting facts.
http://www.pax.tv/specials/passion
1. James Caviezel was approached by someone 6 months before Mel Gibson asked him to be in the movie. The person who approached James Caviezel said to him, "You will play Jesus."
2. James Caviezel's initials are "JC" and he was 33 years old during the making of the film. (Jesus died at age 33)
3. James Caviezel explains that he was struck by lightning while they were making the film. He goes into detail about his experience. He says that it felt like someone was squeezing his head and that he saw white for 20 seconds. I'm not sure if he was on the cross when he got struck by lightning, but I remember him saying, "When they put me up there, I knew I was gonna get hit by lightning."
4. It was Mel Gibson's hand that pounded the nail into Jesus' hand. They showed how they used a fake hand with a fake "palm" but the fingers were real because the fingers came up from underneath the fake palm. And the finger that draws a line in the dirt, that you've seen in all the trailers. That was Mel Gibsons hand.
5. Satan is played by a woman named "Rosalinda Celentano" but Mel Gibson put in a man's voice instead of using her voice. Then he explains why he thought Satan should look beautiful and a cross between male and female.
Hopefully they will put this "making of Documentary" on the DVD because I don't see it listed again on the PAX website. If someone finds out that it will play again somewhere, let us know.

I can't believe you said that. It offends my religious sensibilities. It shook me to the bone. NO, Belucci does not get ass-raped in a tunnel by Jesus. This is the revenge picture where she ass-rapes Jesus with a 12 inch KONG dildo.

Fine, I can't spell. Your analysis is completely horse dung. Screw you to buddy. I think the posiition you stated is inaccurate and silly. And you didn't even have the guts to tackle my position because you have no opposition to it to speak of. I stated facts that I've observed in the media, politics, and society and instead of proving me wrong, you attack my spelling, name-call, and write a bunch of nonsense instead of argue against the points I made. Why? Because I was right and you know it and you have NO arguement against it. I know of no one who wants a 'migration'. News to me. Maybe this point you mention stems from YOUR desire to see this happen and have, by argueing with me, introduced another 'hopeful' circumstance of the Nazi Liberal agenda I wasn't aware of. All in all though, I can see where you come from in that your silly tirade and insults cannot substitue for a legit arguement. Apparently, I struck a chord and you feel ashamed and cough up some BS (unless this is part of your agenda I wasn't aware of...see what you reveal that I didn't know about the Nazi's scheme. More ammo for me to further my point). So now, Liberal Jew haters want this migration (under the guise 'christians' want it) so that once they are all in Isreal, they can all get bombed together. Your sick! I feel for you man. You Nazi Facist Lefty Jew-Hater. By the way, you mispelled my name. :)

Do I know liberals? I live in Bill Clinton country son. Something daddy told me, uh? No. I am to old to have daddy think for me. You need to open your eyes man. It is everywhere you look. Liberal Jew haters. Oh, you don't like the rhetoric? Tough! Get used to it. Rhetoric can fly both ways. Finally! A liberal who now has to deal with bomb-throwing. However though, I know too many liberals. This is a 50/50 country. And no, not every liberal. But who doesn't generalize these days? Look at this thread. As a whole though, Jew Hating Liberalism is ever present in America. I call my liberal friends on it, I see liberal Jews cringe when they talk that way...so yeah. I've seen it at home as well as the media and politics. Wonder why the 2000 VP Candidate Lieberman for the Dems got NOWHERE in the primary? I wonder... Nazi a far right thing? Not anymore...That is what the Jew-Hating Liberals want you to believe. Spelling is overated....And why so defensive like Dick if you aren't a Nazi. Giuly about something. "Why, I have never hated Jews before". Heh...I see, you're a closet Jew Hater Nazi Liberal then. :) And if you don't like the accusations, or Dick doesn't like the accusations...stop hurling them yourselves. IMAGINE HOW MEL FEELS. It sucks when people lob flames at you guys doesn't it? And by celebrating, I mean internally. Its when the talking heads start ranting about how the religious nuts in Isreal have it coming is when my stomach starts to turn. STILL, NO ONE HAS REFUTED THE ARGUEMENT I PRESENTED!!!

Good or bad, give me a thousand movies like this...that dare jump off a cliff without a parachute...over any number of safe movie studio product or crappy indie film that we're suppose to take seriously because it has characters bitching about their love life all shot with a shaky DV camera. Caleb Deschanel's camera work alone make it worth my time.

And your saying Paul Anderson could do a better job?? Holy shemolians, the movie wasn't THAT bad...and for the "gibson should have made a film that lived up to the hype" remark, I dont think gibson was trying to make a blockbuster with little jesus action figures. There were 15 of us previewing "The Passion" on Saturday, and 1 of us laughed because its another Jesus movie. So you laughed too, that must mean out of every 15 audience members, 1 will laugh?? I dont know, it was a good movie I thought. Have fun writing Mortal Kombat 3 :D I'm sure it will be as moving as "The Passion" was...oh, dont forget to live up to the hype ;)
-Mike

Moriarity,
Your review was very bias on based on your thoughts about religion. This movie really struck a nerve with you, for personal reasons it sounds. It sounds like you you have an agenda or an ax to grind with someone, gibson, Jesus, or whoever. At least Harry may or may not agree with the spiritual aspect of it, but he went into it non-biased and his review reflected that. Harry reviewed it as movie and not about what Gibson included and what he didn't. If you can't separate your own personal feelings from a movie, don't review the movie. Review the movie for what it is, a movie.
Summary, harry non-biased and moriarity very biased about this movie.
Who would have thought?

...it's about keeping the followers in line. I'm a quote-Christian-unquote, but I recognize that our modern methods and materials of worship have been greatly corrupted by the MEN (repeat: mere men) who have ORGANIZED it all. The buck stops at Christ; everything else is the bullshit of meddlers. Including Mel's vision. Sure, he and every religious leader on the planet are entitled to their faith and views...but I ain't fallin' for it!!

If liberals hate Jews so much, why are most American Jews liberals? Almost 90% vote Democrat in every election -@ the same rate as Blacks. I guess Blacks are also Nazis, too by your dimwit logic. You are one dumb twat.

Look at their hero, King George. Listen folks, the last time someone listened to a talking bush, they ended up wandering the desert for 40 years......
http://www.mvp-seattle.org/pages/pagefascism.htm The 12 warning signs of fascism...see how many match with the current regime.

All you who are complaining about the little things like the biblical account shown of pilate, and lack of love by Jesus, or not enough of the human story are missing the point. This was meant to be only about these last few ours. I think Christians of all denominations, and the church in general have minimized the death of Jesus. It is easy to forget that, given the biblical account of the scourging and crucifixion, that Jesus was probably gratefull to be on the cross to end the suffering. Moriarty talks about that as being cartoonish and over the top, but thats exactly what it was. In the gospel it gets into enough detail to tell you that the roman guards were pulling out pieces of his beard,(which they did not show) and hitting him in the head with rods while the crown of thorns was on(which they did). Now, I don't know about you, but any body who would do such things to anyone is totally beyond the pale of anything human and would have easily been worked into the crazied frenzy depicted in the film. Now, the point I agree with moriarty on is that this film is aimed at the church, and won't, as moriarty wasn't, impact just anybody. We,(I mean christians) have been waiting for a film that depicts the whole death of Jesus, and not just the crucifiction, and appreciate the singularity of it's purpose. One last thing. Not all christians will appreciate or like this film, or be positively impacted by it. But remember, not everybody liked, appreciated, or was positively impacted by Jesus when he was here, and this is just a film.

I'm a theatre usher and I've watched the movie at least FIVE times now, dont you guys remember the scenes where jesus is all beat up and doesnt wanna move? Then he sees his mother Mary, then he get the motivation to get up and movie? The first time was when he was getting flogged, and another time was when he was crawling into the cross to be crucified. He realized that he is doing this for humanity, and when he looked at his mother, he realized he is doing this to save her soul. Watch it again Mor, then write a review thats not fulled full of fan-boy angst.
-Mike

I just got back from seeing The Passion and I guess I'm a bit torn on this. I do disagree with Moriarty on a number of issues - I thought it was extremely well done, not the slightest bit cartoony, not anti-Semitic, and overall a pretty good movie. However, I do concur on the context issue. Something seemed to be missing. While I am admittedly no longer the devout Catholic I was raised to be, I can still recognize the complete absence in this movie of what Christianity is supposed to represent - the hope of an eternal salvation from a loving and forgiving God. By focusing exclusively on the unimaginable brutality of Jesus' final hours, little time is devoted to the reason for this horrific death. Now I know this movie is supposed to focus on the Passion and not Jesus' life or the resurrection, but as so many people will take this as Christian doctrine and not simply a movie (thanks in large part to the efforts of Mr. Gibson), there is far too little context for such immense suffering. There is no hope, no inspiration, no sense that this was a gift from God to humanity. As such, the end result is an incredibly depressing picture that does little to advance or illuminate the basic tenets of the Christian faith. The movie certainly says the right things for why this is happening but in no way do you actually feel it the way you feel the torture of Jesus. Part of the problem may stem from the fact that almost everybody besides Pilate and Christ

First of all, I didn't understand where the anti-semetic viewpoint was coming from prior to seeing the film. Upon viewing the film it is clear where this sentiment is coming from. You would have to be entirely ignorant not to understand that the Jewish Council is portrayed as the unrelenting brutal persecutors of Christ. I'm not arguing historical accuracy, but merely what the film portrays. There are several comic book type scenes, the scourging, for example. I know people can be unreasonably cure, but the bloodlust exhibited during these scenes defies imagination. The ending left much to be desired, this movie seemed more about pounding in the absurd amount of injury was inflicted on Jesus. Crucifixion was not enough, in and of itself, explain why they tortured him so much more cruelly than any other and why they demanded the release of a psychotic murderer rather than Jesus. What had he done, the speculation offered up by the movie offers up nothing more than to lead one to conclude that Jews are evil people. This is not the great movie that the people have been led to believe. This is one man's vision of the way that Christ died, and he imagines something that is truly horrible, while offering little reason, other than Jewish hatred, with no redemption for the suffering, whatsoever.

wow great analysis oh wise and all-knowing religious expert. you nailed it right on the head. except for the fact that muslims, jews, christians (and a large majority of the major religions) actually acknowledge the existence of Jesus and base their religions around him. nice job with your "research". i just got back from the movie about an hour ago and i am still in awe at what i witnessed on screen. gibson's artistic vision (three years in the making) is unparalled in emotion and sheer intensity compared to a large majority of the recent films (a lofty task considering the impact of 21 grams, return of the king, mystic river, etc). i am sick of anti-christian hate mongers spewing forth their 2 cents. this refers to all of you atheist drones that try to fill a void in your lives by starting disputes with people who have actually chosen a religious orientation. sorry, we actually believe in "something". the reason gibson made this film was for people like you. the movie is entitled "the passion of the Christ". that means its primary subject matter is centered around the suffering and death of jesus so that our sins would be forgiven. its not about him hanging out with his disciples and performing miracles. if you're looking for the story of Jesus' ministry, this isn't the movie for you. read the gospel. yes, it is violent. yes, it is graphic and often difficult to watch in parts. that was gibson's INTENT. he didn't want to show "sensitive" and "sheltered" movie-goers a handsome jesus skipping to the cross. jesus suffered for us and if he can suffer through hours of intense physical pain we can most certainly watch what he did for us. i'm so appalled at the sheer stupidity of some of these reviews i feel like sticking my head in a ziploc bag and screaming until i pass out from lack of air. THIS MOVIE IS NOT ANTI-SEMITIC! let me write that one more time for all of the disillusioned people of the world. THIS MOVIE IS NOT ANTI-SEMITIC! the predominant group of people in jerusalem at the time of Jesus' death were...DING! DING! JEWISH people! there were no canadians. no yugoslavians. but there were....JEWISH PEOPLE! THAT MEANS THAT THE JEWS DID TAKE HIM TO THE CROSS BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN THIS FILM IS ANTI-SEMITIC! if Jesus lived in Brazil than he would have been taken to the cross by Brazilians. now that we got that out of the way, for everyone that says this film is historically inaccurate needs to be smacked around with cheap, rubber tubing. the basis for the film is the gospels, which the Christian faith accepts as factual evidence. if you are not a Christian, of course you will not agree. that's fine. everyone is entitled their own opinion. but don't bash Christians because you are not sympathetic with their beliefs. that is the equivalent of me bashing the muslim religion. i may not agree with them but i don't criticize their faith. people like you make me choke on my own vomit. now, as for mori, i hope this movie generates a nice discussion group for you and all your spock-eared trekkie buddies. sorry that you think klingon = cool. to me... klingon = social outcast that still lives at home with their mom and plays computer games in the basement. thats too bad gibson couldn't give jesus a lightsaber for ya. i wonder how an aging geek like yourself landed a job at AICN writing regurgitated reviews that are drenched in stupidity and liberal filth. another topic for another post.......

First off, it seems that the book has (count 'em) FOUR _different_ versions of this guy's sorry story. What's up with that? The stories are similar but there are annoying differences. Were the writers going for a sort of Rashomon thing with telling a narrative from different perspectives? If so, it was just confusing. -------- SPOILER ------------- I didn't buy the whole "resurrection" thing. I mean, if he is going to come back to life, why just give a couple of speeches, eat some fried fish, then disappear again? And speaking of raising the dead whatever became of Lazarus? He must've ended up dying again eventually. There were just too many loose ends. I'm glad at least Gibson's film version decided to stick to telling just _one_ version of the story and eliminated a lot of needless fat. IMO, I think both the book and the movie might've benefitted from some more interesting restructuring. How about telling it "Memento"-style, i.e. in reverse chronological order? Show the dude gettin' crucified then show the events leading up to it, you know, how he ended up getting in trouble with the law in the first place. Or something.

You've all got to be kidding me if ANYONE thinks this was ANY kind of review. Give me a freakin' break. MONTY PYTHON offered a better look at the circumstance and settings of Christ or Christianity? I knew Moriarity was a clueless clod, I just didn't know HOW clueless till this review truly exposed his empty brain cavity. At least Harry came through again and in his comments about the movie he reviewed the actual MOVIE and how it made him feel, what it made him think of, etc. as he normally does. Sure, Harry's reviews go off on tangents about his youth or some other whacked thing, but ultimately it circles back and at least Harry judges the FILM. But does McWeeny do that? No. Now it's NOT about reviewing the movie itself -- in an true ego inducing moment, it's about how HE'D do the movie or approach it. So now all we get from Mori are ramblings that are simply geek wishfests. Once again -- as is too often becoming his droning style -- we have read a billion words (ever heard of EDITING, Drew?) to endure his boring, self-absorbed and vomit inducing ego stroking as he pats himself on the back. What is he so proud of this time? First off, that he considers himself the right person to judge the artistic merits of this movie NOT because he's approaching it AS a movie critic OR judging it AS art, but because he feels he's spiritual. Oh, yeah, and cockily he feels he's somehow a writer who's sense of film construction bears listening to -- though last time I checked I can't quite remember WHAT THE HELL McWEENY'S EVER DONE EXCEPT CONTRIBUTE TO A GEEK FAN SITE. Right...that qualification puts his opinion artistically right up there alongside Mel Gibson, OSCAR WINNING DIRECTOR. And I nearly gagged over the notion that Mori feels he's spiritual given his buffet-line style of religious beliefs which is summed up as "I'll try some of that...a little of that...ooh, and put some of that on my plate, please...wait, changed my mind, now I want THAT." Far easier to take that approach rather than actually just BELIEVING in something which is the whole POINT of being spiritual and subscribing to a particular religious belief. It's called taking a position, which coincidentally is what he doesn't want to do here. Well, he does -- however the position he wants to stake out is to simply ape other critics coming down on the movie (I agree with others, this bullshit that McWeeny had to "wait" to collect his thoughts for months is utter ca-ca, though the notion that he's not even judging the final film is truly eye rolling). Which brings up the second notion that the PASSION lacked "context" when it's not supposed to be a freakin' 8 hour Hallmark miniseries about Jesus' whole life -- it's called the PASSION because, gee whiz, it's about the PASSION and his last 12 hours, Drew. Get it? Sheesh, glad to know when McWeeny ever cons someone into buying one of his pitiful scripts -- or Heaven forbid, invests enough money to actually produce one -- we can look forward to HIS idea of structure and context which obviously consists of whatever by-the-book Syd Field SCREENPLAY chapter he's skim reading through today...

**I'VE READ ALOT OF THE POSTS GOOD AND BAD,EVRYONE IS ENTITLED TO THEIR OPINION.BUT WHAT REALLY OFFENDS ME ARE THE PEEONS THAT TRY TO BE CLEVER BY BEING SHOCKING(ie:woodystiffer's post and grammaton cleric and a few others)IF YOU DON'T HAVE ANYTHING INTELLIGENT TO ADD IN YOUR POST AT LEAST BE RESPECTFUL TO OTHER PEOPLE.I'M CHRISTIAN AND I BELIEVE IN RESPECTING OTHER PEOPLE'S BELIEFS, EVERY RELIGION HAS IT'S MERIT.WHEN YOU GO ON AND POST SOMETHING AS DISRESPECTFUL AS THAT YOU SHOW YOUR IGNORANCE!!I DON'T CARE IF A PERSON BELIEVES IN A TIC TAC,THAT IS HIS CHOICE ,YOU DON'T MOCK IT ,YOU ALLOW HIS VIEWS TO BE HEARD WITHOUT PREJIDUCE!TO ADD ONE LAST THING,JESUS WAS JEWISH,HE LIVED IN JERUSALEUM WHICH IS OCCUPIED BY WHAT?CHINESE?MEXICANS?..JEWS !WHO CRUCIFIED JESUS?JEWS!!GET OVER IT,DON'T TRY TO CHANGE HISTORY,SUCK IT UP!IT'S NOT ANTI-SEMETIC IF IT'S THE TRUTH!

hehe, "Big Dumb Ape" took the words right out of my mouth...
Now, about this "anti-jewish" message mel seems to be "sending"...
It was all political. They felt Jesus was a political liability for claiming he was the messiah and they were embarassed. Yes, the political leaders were jewish, but so were the countless others that loved jesus and were all for him. If you didnt catch that our sins put jesus on the cross, then see it again...this time w/out the religious blind-fold.

You still missed the whole point of my post. And I realize you are going to respond to me everytime I post to one-up me, but it is futile because you look sillier than I do already. I won't lose sleep over comments from an unknown person on a website. You apparently will. So keep flaming me. My intent was very clear. You don't like bombs thrown at you, don't throw them at others. Like I said...satire. However, in all satire and comedy there is an element of truth to it. You still provide no answer to my original post. I am sure that it is a comfort to you that 90% of people you and your Facist Jew-Hating Liberal friends hate vote in agreement with you. :) You can't, however, refute my arguements. Some Jews are liberal, most are moderate, and all have to turn a deaf ear sometimes when the Nazi Liberals spew their anti-semitic agenda for the Middle East, and anti-religious agenda for America. This is the truth. Yeah, and YOU don't have any anti-religion agenda in you...of course not. Yeah right. And since you brought it up...I could and maybe should post an arguement showing how white Liberals are also the biggest racist bigots against blacks and other minorities, and there would be truth to it (Democrat West Virginia Senator's anyone), or how they hate women and kill them (fat Democrat Senators from Mass. anyone), but maybe I will just continue this conversation through e-mail instead of a public forum that is supposed to be about movies (but isn't and hasn't been in years). Same way for blacks too though as far as turning a deaf ear to Dem(wit) politicians over religion and what-not. However, more and more are voting independent or republican...or with my party, the libertarians. So there. Even Al Sharpton calls the Dems. on being two-faced with them and other minorities. Anyway, poor Joe Lieberman. How he holds it together I'll never know, and he should leave the dummy-crat party and become independent or libertarian...E-mail me Dick and/or ErrantTwin if you wish to continue the discussion. Or just keep posting your rants here in hope that someone may get a kick out of all of us tit-for-tating over silly things and may you find the same fulfillment you seek in a forum with your ranting the way Christians do in a Mel Gibson movie. Laters...

Passion CRUCIFIES the competition at the boxoffice. Mel gibson RESURECTS the religious movie. Passion NAILS the competition. Jumping JESUS ON A CROSS Passion rakes in the $$$$. Jesus is back and badder than ever!

What do you mean "Jewish-media conspiracy nonsense?" How is it a conspiracy, or anything except FACT that jews control Hollywood (and all you have to do is turn on the TV to see the negative images of whites)? Furthermore, liberal jews are the first people to say that "rich, old white guys control everything." Is THAT a conspiracy?

"The Passion" and the furor
::::Jews behaving badly
::::By ANDY NOWICKI::::
Actor, director, and former "Sexiest Man in the World" Mel Gibson recently gave an interview to Diane Sawyer on ABC to defend his upcoming movie, "The Passion of the Christ," which has been accused of fomenting anti-Semitism, essentially because it portrays the scourging and crucifixion of Christ as depicted in the Christian Gospels, which undeniably means that the audience is exposed to some striking examples of Jews behaving badly.
::::
Of course, there are good Jews in the Christian account as well, including but not limited to Jesus Himself. Still, as Gibson pointed out in the interview, those who are against his movie really have a problem with the four Gospels, and, thus, with Christianity itself. After all, to be a Christian means to believe that Jesus is the Son of God, and to believe that Jesus is the Son of God means that you think the Jews, who reject the notion of Jesus as the Son of God, are (gasp) wrong. Ergo, to be a Christian is to be "anti-Semitic," or at least anti-Judaic, since if you take your religion seriously, you hold it to be the truth and those who disagree with it (in this case, Jews) to be in error. And that, of course, shows

Absolutely spot on mate. Remember Charlton Heston was one of the major stars in the 70s and I still, to this day remember his death scenes in BEYOND THE PLANET OF THE APES, SOYLENT GREEN (led away bloodied and near death screaming), his death in EARHTHQUAKE in the climactic flood and the classic itself, his near-crucifixion in the fountain of blood climax at the hands of mutants in the THE OMEGA MAN.

Just come out and admit it, you
don't like it because it portrays
the jews of the period as doing
something wrong, therefore he must have an anti-semetic agenda.
I think it is you who have the agenda, you tried everything to
pretend you were giving an honest
review but rerely you just want to
spout properganda,
Listen little man, every race on this planet has parts in their
history that their not proud of.
The jewish conconcil bot jesus killed.
What your saying is that because it was bad no one should talk
about it...hmmm theyfore using that theory no one should talk about the gas chambers because
that would be anti-german.
You fucking joke.

I can't wait to see this. Unfortunately, us in the U of K have to wait until the end of March, which is a pain when one is trying to get ones website reasonably well established, but, whatever. I was refreshing to read a negative review of the film, i have to say, even though obviously i can't comment one way or the other. As Jesus pictures go, Last Temptation is one of my favourites on account of the stimuating of the grey-matter, even if its much better written than presented on screen. But Passolini's The Gospel According To Matthew (no saint in the title, although every video release seems to include one anyway) is the touchstone for me. Perfect. It presents the story of jesus with absoloutely no bombast, presenting a compellingly human take on the gospel. It's quiet and subtle, where the passion would appear to be somewhat overstated to say the least. From what i'm reading about this, it looks like it's gonna be the Irreversible of jesus flicks. Unsufferable torment with very little humanity. Still, i can do nothing but reserve judgement, since i havent seen it, but i would be lying if i said this put me off, regardless of how well it was written. Truth is, if i had the money, i catch a flight right now and get queing up outside those theatres. Alas, i must resign myself with scary movie 3 and looney tunes back in action (which is actually suprisingly good, and il be revieweing it on my site later) Cheers Mori, always worth the wait.
http://mondoirlando.blogspot.com

Comparing fears and concerns about "The Passion of the Christ"'s anti-semitic ramifications, and the "anti-German" or "anti-white" sentiments of recent Hollywood movies is more difficult than face value. In the United States (and perhaps most of the world), there is no more sympathetic historical, literary or religious figure than Jesus. The whole nature of Jesus as Savior is that he died for everyone's sins. The malice brought upon this man is deemed by many to be more horrifying and evil than anything in documented human history. This does not represent the feelings of everyone, but there's a serious segment of the population that subscribes to this. Placing blame on a certain group of people for the atrocities up to and including the death of Jesus paints a bullseye on said group of people, even in their current incarnation. I can't imagine anyone believes that Schindler's List is an anti-German film. It is known and understood that a certain group of people, the Nazis, carried out the attempted extermination of groups of people. Some Germans outside the Nazi party risked their lives to help, others couldn't or didn't. Nobody blames an entire nation for the atrocities of the Nazis. The same goes for movies based on slavery. Many whites fought battles to free slaves. Some worked diligently and secretively to free slaves. Nobody is blaming all whites (whatever that means) for the evils of slavery. We live in gray times. We can see the varying degrees within the issues. The Bible is often used as a black-and-white stamp or stencil to paint issues as either "bad" or "good", "sinful" or "righteous". You are either "with" Jesus, or you are "against" Jesus. The Jews who were "with" Jesus... well, they're considered Christians now. What about the Jews who were "against" Jesus? They're Jews. Being considered "against" Jesus, one of the most vilifying positions ever, is a scary place to be. I haven't seen this movie. I can't say first-hand how it portrays anyone or anything. But I can certainly understand the concerns over possible anti-semitism that arise. I would hope that people would not, after viewing this movie, accuse Jews as a whole of turning their backs and condemning a messiah. This is a big movie and it's a big issue for many people. I find it unfortunate that a two-hour Hollywood creation could generate so much hatred. I hope it's not true. In other news, Judaism is not a "race". I don't think the concept of "race" is valid in any respect, but certainly not when it is applied to religion. Nobody talks about the "Christian race". Also, suggesting that "the Jews run Hollywood" is inane and ridiculous. Stop saying that. It just sounds dumb. --d

So Gibson gets the theology all wrong, huh? And you would like to educate him on it? Well, considering the fact that YOUR approach to religious culture has produced the most de-mythologized society in history, why would he listen to you? Maybe you could repeat some lectures from your class entitled "We Used To Rule The Western World, But We Fucked It All Up", or maybe something from the upper-level seminar "How We Stood Still And Let Voltaire Kick Our Asses Eight Ways To Sunday". Taking lessons on theology from one of you would be like taking lessons in imperial policy from the fucking British. Your five hundred year record of abject and humiliating decline and retreat, and your utter marginalization in modern society, would seem to indicate that you should shut the fuck up. As far as I can see, there are three groups of people: people who are functionally agnostic or "politely" atheistic [i.e. either outright skeptics or people who don't go to church or believe in the supernatural but who don't bother to announce it]; the true believers like Mel; and the last, somewhat sad and pathetic group, of slowly decaying politicians presiding over the death of a tradition that has surrendered its core beliefs and has lost its reason for being. The third group is slowly disappearing, and should be entirely gone in 20 more years. Since you are, in effect, the passenger pigeons of our culture, why would anyone listen to you?

This movie is about the suffering of Christ!!! It focuses on that. Not redemption, salvation, or who's fault it is that Jesus was condemned to die. Although The movie does touch on all these points its about the suffering he did and the life he gave. Don't complain there's not enough of this or enough of that or Gibson didn't touch on this specific situation. Don't do it! You are wrong if you do!

You know, whether or not you believe Christ was the Son of God, God made flesh (I do), or not is besides the point here. Gibson has made a beautiful film. Bloody as hell, yes, and of course that is the point: a cinematic "painting" of Christ's suffering for us. Is it too bloody? Does it dwell too long on the brutality? An emphatic no, for that again is the entire point. And lack of context? What the hell are you talking about? The context of this film is known through and through, inside and out, forever and ever amen. It's not about his ministry depite the handful of flashbacks, it's simply his final hours and a meditation on what probably went through (of course liberties are taken, that is the nature of the medium). Gibson has made a revolutionary film in that he doesn't pull any punches. That is what a man looks like when you beat him mercilessly and then nail him to a cross. God bless Gibson for having the balls to show it all. Christ was revolutionary, THE revolutionary. In fact, I think it's quite possible that when he says "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life; no man comes to the Father but through me" he is saying that is not a concious "decision" to come through him. You don't "decide" to do anything. The weight of the world's sin past, present and future was put on his back by God and then murdered on a cross. Like it or not, Christian or Jew or Muslim or Buddhist or Atheist or whatever, redemption has been achieved through that act, the penalty incurred by our sin is fulfilled. YOU can't do anything to change that. Believe if you want, don't if you don't want to. Even Christ suggest that all men are saved by his act, even those who mock him when he begs God "to forgive them for they know not what they do." This Jesus guy (in my best Sam Jackson voice) was one amazing motherf*$er if you ask me. A revolutionary par excellence. Go see the film and f*@ the naysayers. Decide for yourself.

Judging by the quality of most of the talkbacks, I don't think that there are too many great writers in here. If you think that writing anything professionally is an easy task, try it yourself. Writing is a tough life. You pour a great deal of energy, time, and emotion into producing something that may never go anywhere. Nobody but your wife or a good friend might ever read what you write, regardless of the quality. "A Confederacy of Dunces" is regarded as a work of genius, but was rejected over an over again until the author killed himself. In the end, it took his mother to find a publisher. It had nothing to do with the quality of the work, but with the harsh realities of the publishing system. Hollywood is worse. There are tons of screenplays floating around that would make great movies, but the reality of the system keeps them from getting made. So it takes guts to try even a project a like Mortal Kombat 3. I still think Teddy Roosevelt said it best___________________________:
"It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong man stumbled, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions,and spends himself in a worthy cause; who, at the best, knows in the end the triumph of high achievement; and who, at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat."
- Theodore Roosevelt

If I were asked to give this film a star rating, I would give it 3/4 stars. It was not the vile anti-jewish turd, or the devine revolution to modern cinema that various groups, pundits, and religeous leaders would lead you to believe. Mel Gibon is a competent film maker, not one who necessarily has a whole lot of style, but he did use a few interesting techniques in this film to get his thoughts on Jesus and his crucifiction across.
Note the scene where Jesus is being whipped to shreds by sadistic roman soldiers. Satan appears, and he is cuddling a horrible deman baby in his hands. Those with the slightest bit of cinematic literacy could see that basically the devil is taunting him, saying "This is how I treat my children, look how god is treating you. Why do you not denounce him?" The best example comes when Jesus finally perishes on the cross. We get an extreme wide shot from overhead. Suddenly, the edges of the frame become augmented, and we realize we are inside of a singular drop of rain falling to the ground. God was crying.
The jews who thought this movie portrayed their leaders during this time unfairly should definitely lighten up. If one group in this film is demonized, it was the Romans, who despensed the most sadistic of tortures with sneers, giggles, and grins. Pilate is portrayed as a wuss who was afraid of the jews, and of death, and Herod looks like a chubby frivolous dandy. Unfortunately, we don't have the romans protesting what they did to them in the movie, in essense, showing that they were the vile sadistic patsies to a minority of Jews.
If there was one thing that annoyed me in this film, it was the digital colorization of Jesus' eyes. The actor who played him had blue eyes, and so while the cinematography was beautiful, every scene that the tormented savior appeared in was botched by these brown pigmentations placed near his eyes. There was even a few scenes where his entire eyes were digitized, and one frame where it look like the effect had become completely botched, and Jesus's eyes dissapeared from the frames alltogether. Seriously, in place of his eyes, were two white holes. The guy who played jesus did a great job. I am glad they hired him, but let his eyes remain blue. Ah, anywho.
Some of the the new hordes of Mary Magdelene (who confuse the thriller novel The Davinci Code as either Historical or Theological) worshipers will most definitely be upset when they see her identified as the whore Jesus saved in the cast the first stone scene. Granted, their anger is justified. We dont know for sure who Magdelene was, and seeing as how she was one of the few positive female characters in the new testament, it is bullshit to just say she was some whore. You don't have to know who Magdelene was, even if she was Jesus' lover, to know that she was at least commendable to stand by his side when all the other disciples but one either fled or betrayed him. I didn't really get caught up in this detail, but I can see why some people will.
My parents and many other protestants will probably get mad at scenes that imply reverence to the Mother Mary.
Its funny how you can't make a movie about jesus, including one that isnt great, which is definitely the case with The Passion, without summoning strong feelings from people that are negative or positive, even from people who do not believe in him. This is a good new movie, definitely worth seeing over all the crap they push out into theatres during January, February, and March.
Moriarty needs to see the movie again, and write about it again. They demon kids stuff scemes to have been dramatically shortened based on Moriarty's description. The whipping scene is not laughable. At least not to anyone who could invest only the tiniest amount of their heart into a film (I never thought I could accuse drew of post modernism, but oh well). Drew sat on what he actually thought about this film for too long. Also, the film he saw wasn't even finished.
Kill Bill Volume 2 can't get here any sooner.

Is you.. you bunch of ignorant right-wing-Christian nut-jobs. Bring on The Rapture for Chrissakes so the rest of us decent open-minded and dare I say it "liberal" people can enjoy living in a world devoid of reactionary and backwards thinking. Jesus didn't die for my sins and he sure as hell wasn't a Christian. Christianity is a Romanised bastardisation of Judaism based on flimsy tales of miracles and suprstitios mumbo-jumbo. Do you hear that? It's the sound of JC flipping cartwheels in his grave.

This was a wonderful protrayal of the last 12 hours of Christ's life. I didn't see any anti-semitism. I don't think I was turning a blind eye because I watched the film unflinchingly. I'm pretty sure I have a grasp of what hate is but I think I have a better grasp of seeing someone's love for the story and for his own vision. Mel made a fantastic movie and I don't hate or blame Jews after seeing it. I'll be seeing it again very soon as should everyone.

I'm sure JUDAS'S PRIEST dreams of a liberal utopia where there's strict gun control so the common people are defenseless and the only ones armed are the ruling class and soldiers that patrol every street corner, the proletariats bow to the ultimate authority of the State, there are no civi liberties or rights, taxes take away 90% of everyone's paycheck, and the proles have to wait in bread lines.

What you are, Drew, is gutless. The Church-of-England-of-America is a Catholic church twice removed because its followers wanted special exceptions...none based on valid theological grounds...the Church of England is a vanity church, and the Episcopalians are the rebel colonialist spin-off. Twice removed from the Vatican, it's no wonder they're adopting the new view of Jesus...THE HAPPY JESUS...convieniently bending the Bible to fit in their "if it feels good, do it" theology that drives left-wingers today. If you HAD guts, you would have gone from Catholicism to Agnosticism. Instead, you searched for something where you could feel secure about yourself, not have to make any TRUELY tough decisions, and kept looking for a "spiritual club" you could join that has low standards for admission. You just want to be loved, I know. Poor kid. THERE, now we have a post from a "right-wing" athiest.

as a (sometimes more sometimes less) christian AND filmfan i fear that you`re right mori! i also read in a couple of other (sometimes pseudo-anti-hollywood ish) reviews that as far as the content is concerned this film is rather pointless except showing the suffering of jesus. what made me a bit optimistic was harry`s fazit that this film had such a pacifistic message to him. but if i hear stuff like the crow eating the brain of one of these two guys hanging on their crosses next to jesus..i seriously worry about gibson`s religious intentions. (this sounds to me a bit like he would destroy the gospel`s message that every sinner or whoever is invited by god) however, i haven`t seen this film yet ( and will have to wait till april 8th the german release) i really had in mind that maybe this movie could open to me some new experiences concerning my/the believing and the meaning of jesus` resurrection. but it sadly doesn`t seem so.

Bumbling, incompetent puppet leader who is manipulated by evil, frothing and insane advisors, Osama (or perhaps the ghost of Ronald Reagan...is he dead or not?)could be taunting him as Satan; somethings haven't changed. If you do this exercise, the movie will have more urgency and horror, but will render even more depair.

I saw it last night at the 7PM show. Loud, very audible sobs of grief from some of the audience were heard as well as some people praying in the aisles during the scourging. LISTEN: What Gibson did was make a movie that pointed out to everyone who wants it sugar-coated that Jesus died for our sins and he died horribly in case you want to ignore that. You can have it all off camera if you want, but that would lessen the impact of Gibson's message. He was beaten with canes and he was scourged and all other movies made on the subject has let the viewer off the hook when it comes that brutal fact. Gibson did not want you to ever forget that the Passion was that and he did a good job of not letting us off the hook. I am also left thinking that it was a few hateful men and the bloodthirsty mob that killed him. Not a race. There were plenty jewish men and woman distraught over what was happening. But the mob and the stupid bloody Roman soldiers were equal to the stupid bloodthirsty people throughout history that props up their heroes and tears them down. I left the movie thinking that I am not the person I could be because this DID happen (it probably was that brutal) and if HE could do that for me, where does that leave me? This movie made me think and what more do you want? Popcorn? I don't know that Moriarity saw the same movie, or he was hung up on his own prejudices or ... bowing to the mob mentality of destroying our heroes.

"No Mel Gibson is not anti-semetic, but this film has the possibility to spark anti-semetism" The leader of the anti-defamation league said that, right? Well, I heard about some white power group saying that Return of the King was a great film because the orcs and uruk-hai were a metaphor for black people, sharing many of the same traits. Obviously that is NUTS. But because some people MISINTERPRET things, does that mean that Return of the King, ect., should never have been made in the first place?? Such is the problem with art. The bible is MISINTERPRETED a lot, and has been throughout history, but does that mean the printing press never should have been invented so that the masses could finally read their own copies of scripture?? Think about it.

Thank GAWD someone has said it how it is. I just saw the finished "film" last night and it's all fine and dandy that Mel made a $25 million personal film, but I gotta say -- a TEAR DROP? Ummm, was that GOD crying?
There are plenty of things wrong with this pic, but there are still SOME things that have some value. In the long run, I'm with you -- this isn't going down in history. TEMPTATION tries to do something with Christ. PASSION just goes along for the ride.
I felt like I was watching a JayCee Highlights Reel in the middle of a 2 hr 10 min. extended cut of the BRAVEHEART torture scene...

Sorry I haven't had time to read much of the message board, so I apologise if I make a point already made.
I understand Moriarty's point about context - but I think a film in Aramaic and Latin about the death of Jesus was really aimed at an audience well versed with the context. It's all the fuss that has made other people want to see it.
As for personal contexts, as a member of the Council of Christiand and Jews in my native land, I think it could actually do alot of good. It makes non-Christians ask 'What was so significant about Christ?', whilst Christians must ask themselves about their attitude to Judaism. Obviously, the depiction of the Pharisees in the film is v. important, but Jesus was also a Jew, as was Mary, Peter etc. There are an awful lot of good Jews in the Gospels!

I got me one of them Mary Magadeline blow up dolls for a $50 donation. I don't know what film this Moriarity claims to have seen! I took my sister as my date and we wuz saved: preacher man said all our sins wuz washed away. To those doubters and to Moriarity, I say "Come on in, the waters fine." "Hard times flush out the chumps."...Ulysses S. McGill.

it occured to me last night while my friends and i were discussing the relevance of christ, that mel gibson succeeded in doing what he wanted to do. his mission was to get people talking about christ and his _____________________ (fill in what you believe in the blank.)
probably the first time my friends have had a conversation on the subject. so you gotta give the guy credit. i mean when was the last time a movie came out that created this much buzz. certainly not t3. maybe you could say lotr, but does that really stir this much opinion and emotion?

honestly you guys think your funny making clever puns about nails, or talking about bible characters with sexual references. your all pretty tasteless and stupid .
I just saw the passion today and I can't say I loved the movie, but its a movie that NEEDS to be experienced. Most people on this site dont believe in religion and want to blame religion for attrocities , when really just like the movie shows, its MAN whos responsible for their own attrocities they just wanna put the blame on someone else.
Anti-semitism in this film? Damn RIGHT. The Jews go around like their people never did anything bad in their history, and instead of admitting that their ancestors may have caused an innocent man to die, they swear it never happened and still wait for the "messiah". Same way white people gotta admit they screwed up and put black people in slavery and the way america has to admit they took this land by force by killing innocent people.
The Jews are NOT innocent people and tho the movie shows exactly the truth, it was EVERYONE who put jesus to death, Romans, Satan and our sins. But its the jews who deny it the most.
After the movie some lady was crying and yelling out hallelujah which pisses me off, why people just cant control themselves and get out of control and make a spectacle of themselves. IT reminded me of how the pharisees acted and ripped their clothes when jesus proclaimed who he was. How hard is it to just shut up, take the movie in , and try to reflect on it. Crying out for jesus isnt gonna do SHIT. you want the truth then search for the truth.
In conclusion, The passion was an experience that didnt wake anything inside me, but it did remind me of the more important issues in this world.

"The historical Pilate was a cruel man, by all accounts, who used sadistic punishments to send messages to the pilgrims that were flooding Jerusalem in those days. One of his favorite methods was crucifixion. It

I agree with you that people do need to take responsibility for their actions but there is a large difference between realizing the truth of what happened in the past and admitting a mistake, and feeling guilty and responsible for the sins of your ancestors. I don't feel ashamed to be white because white people propagated the institution of slavery any more than I feel ashamed to be American because my descendants robbed the Natives of their land and culture. Both were certainly heinous actions and every effort should be made to learn from the past, make reparations where necessary, and avoid similar mistakes in the future, but that history also in no way reflects who I am today as a white American. Modern Jews ARE innocent of the blood of Jesus because it was the Jews of 2000 years ago that called for his death, not their current descendants. In any event, the comparison to slavery and such is dishonest because most Jews do not deny that it was the Jewish religious hierarchy that put Jesus to death. They deny that Jesus was the Son of God and that they therefore not only killed an innocent man, but a deity. Unlike slavery and the Native Americans, this point does not rest on historical fact but is entirely debatable based on your religious convictions. To someone that does not believe in the basic tenets of Christianity, Jesus

RComacho2278, you fuckwad, I make fun of this movie because: (1) it isn't very good; (2) it is manipulative, base and sanctimonious (like your post); (3) payback for right wing destruction of The Last Temptation, a FAR superior movie; (4) I know it will make the pentecostal inbred bores such as yourself piss your pants (5) to ask: has it EVER FUCKING OCCURRED TO YOU, that if people would laugh a little at controversy, instead of demanding that others accept their opinion, there wouldn't BE ANY scourging or crucifixtion? Listen asshole, I've been a BELIEVER for twenty years, I don't need you to tell me why I need to worship the vision of a hack director. Comprehendere mutherfucker?

The critics who are slamming The Passion for its "pornographic" violence are the same critics who praise secular Hollywood films that glorify sex, profanity, and violence. The Passion doesn't glorify violence. It's supposed to be horrific and hard to watch because thats what the crucifixion was. It also makes Christ's sacrifice that much more meaningful. As a Christian, I believe that Christ died for our sins. Sin in itself is a horrible and disturbing flaw of man. The violence in the film is a reflection of that flaw. As for the charges of antisemitism, let me just say that to call The Passion antisemetic is to say that it blames all Jews for Christ's death which it does not. While the Jewish high priests and the angry mob aren't exactly shown in the best light, its the Romans who scourge and nail Jesus to the cross. I haven't heard any Italians complaining. It also goes back to my first point, that Christ died for us, meaning that we all are responsible for his death. And lastly, Gibson based The Passion on the 4 Gospels. So people who have a problem with the film really have a problem with the Bible.

If you are serious.... My advice is that you visit different churches and figure out which one fits you best. Pray about it. If you are honestly seeking Him, God will lead you to where you need to be. Understand that all churches are flawed as they are merely human institutions seeking to understand the Divine. Finding a church is important, as I understand it, to provide a Christian fellowship. People of like mind to worship, to learn, and to grow with. Church is quite helpful, but not necessary. Not necessary in that people can, have, and will come to a saving relationship with God without ever stepping foot in a Church. Having said that, I do believe it is beneficial to find one and I believe part of God's desire for us. I'm a Seventh-day Adventist because I believe the SDA church most closely follows the teachings of the Bible...at least as I understand the Bible. No doubt a lot of people will disagree with that statement. Spirituality raises an awful lot of questions and I don't think God requires that we get all the answers right. A good thing since none of us have all the answers. What's more important than getting the answers right is the journey we take to find these answers. The most important thing is that you accept Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour and allow him to write His law of Love on your heart. Good luck and God bless. Email if you want to talk about it more.

It's always boggled me why anyone would want to live eternal life everlasting. Simple economics tells us that the more abundant something is, the less value it has. Gold has been so coveted for centuries because there ain't a lot of it. People are supposed to value their marriages for the very reason that their partner is "The One"; out of the billions of people in the world, that One person is the perfect match. The reason certain pro athletes get paid insane amounts of money is because the talents they possess can't be found in just anybody. So...anybody who wants life everlasting is retarded. Do they not see that having infinite happiness, joy and life makes all of it worthless? How cool would it be to smile if everyone were smiling all the time? How special would an ice cream sundae be if every meal you had was an ice cream sundae? And suppose you had no wants, fears or burdens? To me that means having no goals, triumphs or successes. That sounds more like hell to me than heaven. We're told all the time that life is precious and is a gift from God. Well the only way for life to be precious is if we die and are finished. The reason life IS precious is because it ends. If Jesus is the key to life everlasting...if accepting him as my savior keeps me from ending, then accepting Jesus as my savior makes my life worthless and consigns me to hell. Screw Jesus. I don't want him to die and suffer for me. Maybe a whole lot of you are glad he carries the cross for you and takes a beating for you, but I'm not. I say give me back my death, thank you very much. I value my life.

Sounds like Gibson has a problem admitting that he made a movie based on his own faith. Does anyone see anything wrong with that? The guy is an ego-maniac and the audience is Christian America, but I applaud the guts of tackling the topic with as much depth as he could.
Kudos to Mori for giving a very informative review to someone who hasn't seen it yet. Alot of you are attacking the dude for expressing his opinions just like GIBSON!
Faith is a matter of opinion. So are movie reviews. As someone who is very interested in seeing this movie, I loved the review.

I actually understand why you feel this way but I believe your logic is flawed. Since we do not currently live forever nor do we live in any paradise it is likely impossible for our feeble minds to contemplate what eternity in paradise would be like. I remember trying to explain to my grandfather how incredible SCUBA diving in Micronesia was. Unfortunately, since he's never even been snorkeling...anywhere, it was hard for him to wrap his mind around what I was saying. The only time he's ever had a mask on was in a swimming pool. He found this boring so how could SCUBA diving be any better. You can see underwater...big deal. I can't blame him, but I sure wish I could share with him the experience of diving some of the best reefs in the world and then see how he feels about it. The point to me is that God recognizes that our current situation is far from perfect. Sometimes miserable. He offers us something far better. If you don't want it, He won't force it on you. If you want it, unlike so many rewards in life that are completely out of reach, God will GIVE you paradise. Peace.

I watched The Passion of the Christ and to be honest I thought it was amazing. The story is showing what Jesus went through in the final hours of his life. And yes, it was brutal. What do you expect in that era? Most portrayals of the crucifixion are so tame and I am glad there is now one, which shows something real and probable. Mel Gibson did a fine job with this movie and should be commended. The acting was amazing, and most of it was done without words. There were just expressions, you could look into their eyes and you knew what they were feeling. As to the anti-Semitism I didn

And so does Mel Gibson. The Message of this movie is worship Jesus or burn. Gibson specifically chose to highlight that stupid John 3:16 quotation in his flashbacks instead of the true message of Jesus which was all about love and forgiveness.
Instead of "love your neighbor," we get the simplistic, uninspiring, unspiritual dogma that God is an animal who tortures anyone who doesn't happen to guess right about which invisble magic fairy is the real one. The whole idea of Christ as savior was an invention of Paul who was fusing the early Jesus cult with Greco-Roman mystery cult traditions to synthesize a new religion that had almost nothing to do with what Jesus actually taught. I wish we could see a movie about the real historical Jesus who was just a guy, not a God. I seriously don't understand how so many people can just turn their brains off enough to buy into Christianity or any other religion as being literally true.

he talks extensively about this religious upbringing (and what's left of it in his life) extensively in this interview. Rupert most definitely is not Jewish. Raised Protestant, married and divorced a Catholic, now just "spiritual." anyone who assumes he must be Jewish simply because he's a "media mogul" needs to wake up and open their eyes. As the great philosopher once said... Stereotypes are blinders for the unitiated. http://www.crikey.com.au/media/2002/06/09-murdochinterview.html

He was raised Protestant. He married (and divorced) a Catholic. Now, he's simple "spiritual." Anyone who assumes he's Jewish because of his job is, for lack of a better word, an idiot. You can read some of Rupert's views on religion in this extensive interview. http://www.crikey.com.au/media/2002/06/09-murdochinterview.html

I want to start out by saying I am in no way anti-semitic. On the other hand, my grandpa was Jewish and had to flee from France due to the Holocaust. That being said,I have a hard time understanding what all the anti-semitism fuss is all about. This movie is not about Jews or Romans, or whatever culture. It is about Christ and the suffering He endured for all humanity. It was not made to blame anyone, but to show us how Jesus died to forgive us of our sins. Even if you dont believe in that, you have to understand the "context" as you all say in which the movie was made. It wasnt made to accuse anyone, but to show the story of Jesus last hours. I dont see how anyone will leave this movie with anger toward Jews. Everyone I have talked to left saddened by what Jesus suffered for THEM, not becuase of the Jews. Also why is it the Jews so strongly support movies such as Saving Private Ryan and Schindlers List, both amazing movies that I love. If they think the Passion can cause anti-semitism, then those can cause Anti-German feelings according to their logic. I feel what those movies do is show us history so we can avoid letting it happen again. The same can be siad for Roots and Civil rights movie. These movies arent made to inspire hate, but to help us to learn from history to avoid commiting the same errors again. I belive the same is true for The Passion. I wish people would leave the controversy behind and see the movie for what it really is. A beautiful story of how Jesus Christ gave his life to save all humaninity, including his CHOSEN people, the Jews.

Myglock what can I say, You really show your ignorance and stupidity when you lash out like that. least Midas can carry on a conversation about a topic, but a dick like you , I will not even waste my time.
Fuck you, You make tasteless jokes about MAN ON CROSS and Splatterhouse and "I would fuck Mary" and all the other tasteless bullshit that is uttered from half the dicks that visit this site and think they are clever and funny and only wanna antagonize.If your not religious then thats your fucken choice, Nobody is forcing you to see the movie, nobody is telling you your WRONG for not being religious, yet half the fucken posts here are from atheist assholes trying to tell me MY belief is wrong when im on here to say what I felt about the movie.
FUCK you
The movie was powerful for those who believe in the events that unfolded, and tho you will have morons like midas illustrated about the priest who put a sign up that the JEWS KILLED JESUS when everyone in their right religious mind understands jesus message, understands who really killed jesus, and who is really the evil influence in this world.

sort of a response to you, darthhaole...but mostly just something I feel like saying...
I don't understand why people think this earthly life is so shitty and therefore want some 'paradise' in the beyond, reachable by way of Jesus Christ. I personally feel we live in paradise already.

The thing is, not all Christians believe in eternal torment in Hell. Many Christians like myself believe that although God will eventually put an end to sin and suffering, that He will not torture sinners forever...and that this is a very Biblical teaching. The punishment of the wicked is that they will not inherit eternal life. Simple as that. They will die and that death will be eternal. However, their suffering will not be eternal. Sure, you can make a case that the Bible teaches an eternally burning Hell. You can make a case that the Bible teaches many things that it really does not. But a very careful contextual study of scripture can reveal this alternative understanding which is much more inline with the overall theology of the Bible. I'd be happy to share it with you or anyone interested. Before I close this, I am motivated to serve God because of my love for Him and not my fear of Him. I am motivated to fight the sin that is so abundant in my life because I hate that sin. I hate the suffering that sin brings. I hate it more when my relationship with the Lord is strongest. I hate it less when my relationship with God is less prominent in my life. This is one reason why Christians so desire to have a continuous relationship with their Maker and King and why many insist that daily devotion and not just weekly church attendance is necessary to fully experience Christianity. I don't try to stop sinning because I fear Hell or because I hope for Heaven....Heaven is a free gift to those that Love the Lord and cannot be earned. God desires to give this gift to anyone that desires it, but He will never force it on anyone that doesn't want it. Nor will He allow anyone into the Kingdom that will ruin it for everyone else. Those that make it to Heaven are simply those that have had Christ's law of love written on their hearts. They won't steal or kill because it will be against their nature to do so and this is why sin will never arise again. It's really so simple, although obviously to fully explain it would take a lot more words than I've written here. Honestly, I don't have to turn off my brain to accept Christianity, but I do have to turn ON my brain to truly understand it. I'd be happy to share my personal testimony with you if you are interested. Just email me if you are interested. Peace.

regarding your question about what is wrong in this world. You mention you live in a paradise already. I have it pretty good too. I live in Hawaii. I have a beautiful wife and wonderful kids. Unfortunately, it's not so great for everyone in this world. You and I may be lucky/blessed, but many suffer. Wars happen. Children are sold as sex slaves. People die. Etc etc etc. I long for the day when this suffering is over. I'd write more, but I finally get my chance to go see the Passion. Email me if you ever want to chat. Peace.

Didn't see the movie, not a Christian, big agnostic. Why are so many people in such a flap about how the movie portrays "what really happened"? The movie is a work of interpretation based on what has gone through thousands of years of recopying and hundreds of revisionist hands: the Bible. I don't remember Mel Gibson being mentioned as an eye witness to the crucifixion. People can't even get current "real life" movies right today, and that is WITH opportunity to interview, video footage, and eyewitness testimony in many cases. How come conflicting texts get so much confidence where they are based on ancient happenings? Combine that with questionable anti-semitic bias and I have no idea why people give anything produced by a Hollywood crusader so much credit for "showing how it was." Good or not, the movie should only be considered a movie, not a revelation. Loved Braveheart.

so I will not make any comment, other the a comment about how somebody in the talkback made a comment about Attack of the Clones sucking. Boy do I have a comback for him; "No you suck!"
I am though looking forward to watching the movie, which I think will be okay.

At one point when he's dragging the cross, I got really bored. The constant "violence" just became dull.
And that weird Satan - I'm tempted to shave my eyebrows (again).
As a film it's really bad as the plot makes a lot of assumptions about what we should already know. As an audience you have to add bits and pieces to make sense of the story. You take someone who doesn't know the myth of jesus and they would just be scratching their heads trying to figure out what was happening.
And that last supper scene, I really just started to think it was a cut scene from LOTR - it was all elvish to me.
What worked: it's hard not to emphasize with jesus's mom as she watch her son be brutalized. But even that was pretty sophomoric in it's obviousness.
In Brief: this thing was all over the place re: quality/story. Some good some bad. Really seems like a vanity project.
Don't expect any non-christians to convert cuz they see this.
JEWS: well the first half seems pretty damn clear that it ain't all Jews just power-hungry elites. As the picture wears on though this distinction pretty much goes away and you find yourself saying, fucking jews. You pretty much have to take yourself out of the movie to tell yourself it ain't all jews. Having said that, the film has a clearly unintentional anti-censorship bent. J is condemned for blasphemy - saying things the elites did not want to hear.
Sorta like what all us non-believers face from the fanatics who think invisible ghosts in the sky create/control human events.
So take what you want - like all those loons who think the bible, the koran, the bagavad gita et al come from somewhere other than human origins. hey buddy that shit was created by people, like this movie.
oh one more thing: I've always been disturbed that catholics have a suffering guy on a cross as their main symbol - seems incredibly crude and barbaric makes it kinda natural that there is bullying behaviour on the part of the catholic establishment. This flick does not change my opinion that the catholic religion is barbaric. Sorry dudes, y'all seem like bloodthirsty loons who can't get enough pain and suffering in your lives. And you hide your desire for blood behind the false piety of being concerned w/humility and how the suffering of others teaches you: BULLSHIT you are straight up sadistic in my opinion. Sorry Mel, this won't do anything for anyone other than the converted/brainwashed.
Cheers

Daemonix - ancient scriptures are extensively analyzed and taken word for word because people are sheep and need to be led by the hand. They're morons - they need to be told how to live their lives. There's a reason that congregations are called "flocks".

As usual, your inane ramblings are fun to read. Take a grammar and spelling class, then post moron. No, this movie doesn't need to be experienced. To those of us who could care less about the bible, jc, and all the other mumbo jumbo, this movie holds no significance. Unless there's some tits, then I'm there. Are there any?

And Mel Gibson's one of 'em. I give him props for what he's accomplished here, and face it, what else is out there that is this monumentally controversial right now? (Well, Starsky and Hutch is coming, but still.) The thing is, today's top stars make more money (20 to 60 million per picture for the big stars with ownership percentages, for about 8 weeks "work") than even the greatest stars of yesteryear (Bogart topped out at $200K per pic or something like that.) Even inflation doesn't account for that jump in earnings. The result: movie stars live in a world not our own. Another planet of sorts. It probably drives even the most stable of them just a bit nuts -- the whole world knows who they are, money is no object, anything (or anyone) they want is theirs. Mel claims he went a little suicidal, and needed to work things out in his faith. And if 2 hours of hardcore religious S/M action is what Mel wants to do with $25 mil of his hard-earned, that's what he gets to do with it. He will work again as a superstar (there aren't that many of them at his level), but even if he didn't, he's made so much dough he never needs to work again.

I find it really interesting that there is now talk of blackballing GIbson for this movie by prominent producers,,, Id like to see the outrage and indignance from the Hollywood elite expressed at Elia Kazzan just a few years ago towards these persons, but I guess censorship is ok as long as its ideas that the Hollywood left deems unworthy. Mori Im really dissapointed in your review,, you may be looking to write more than a Powerrangers screenplay for the powers that be someday, but pissing on this film is not the way to do it. Many critics are now showing how out of touch with the mainstream they have become, as evidenced in the record breaking Box office this film is generating. These negative hit pieces will only serve to further marginalize these critics and make their oppinions irrelivant. Obviously we "common" folk get what Mel was attempting to envision in this film. Not a peep is heard with all the Violence in BadBoys 2 and yet violence with purpose is criticized because it really shows an ugly side to all of us that we dont want to be reminded of, wed rather go back to comfortably laughing as Martin Lawrence gets shot in the ass slowmo then blows some guys brains out splatering a wall behind. If this doesnt get an Oscar next year THen any awards won from Peter jackson to Cecile B De Mille are irrelivant and the Oscars are unworthy of the publics awe and respect.

Mel Gibson: once suicidal, now fanatical Christian and complete wackjob. Isn't his psycho Christian order really hardcore? Funny, but I thought adultery was a sin for dem Catholicers. Funny that a guy who's admittedly a strict Catholic would also be someone who's cheated on his wife numerous times. Ah, the glory that is being a hypocrite.

Now all the Jesus freaks are claiming that the "public" has spoken regarding the boxoffice. Yeah, the religious nutjobs and their congregations that purchased entire theaters have spoken. Let's see what the final tally is before you psycho religious types start sucking each other's dicks.

he said that kill bill was gratuitous* "yeah right" and the violence in the passion is so we can remember how horrible we are in our own skin. The violence is healing. I kind of found the violence a little cartoonish. Some critic said this movie will end up being like a cult horror film and people will see it like they see rocky horror

Why is everyone criticizing Mel on his movie? This makes absolutely no sense to me. Mel took 4 books in the Bible and put on film the last 12 hours of Christ's life. It's funny how people just miss the entire plot to the story of Christ. I've read countless reviews and all of them wanted to see the humanity of Christ. They wanted to see his teachings and see his love for others, well Hello!!!! Wake up America. Don't actions speak louder than words? For 2 hours you saw Jesus, betrayed, mocked, whipped, ridiculed, beaten, savagely hurt and then crucified, when all he can say is "father forgive for they do not know what they do." What better teaching is there than that. The point to Christ's life was to die and rise up again, not to teach. He was the sacrificial Lamb people...This movie clearly depicts this and that is why I give it a 5 star. It shows exactly what Christ came to do. If you don't like it, then Talk to God about it, complain to him and ask him why he would let his son die that way, but please don't shoot the messenger.

for all of you who have never read the bible with earnest interest in learning truthfully about Jesus, you can go to Matthew: Chapter27-Verse19. It clearly introduces (Pilate's Wife)her and her concerns. "While he(Pontis Pilate) was sitting on the judgement seat, his wife sent to him, saying,"Have nothing to do with that just man, for I have suffered many things today in a dream because of him." Matthew 27-19. Sounds like to me as far as it goes with Pilate's wife, Mel didn't stray away from the thruth of things. Ligthen up guys. The bible is here to set you free not keep you in bondage. If you would even follow some of the things in it you won't need therapy anymore. Most of these self help people out there are just rehashing things that are in the bible and are making a fourtune off of you. Stop trying to find reasons to run from God and learn to listen to the voice inside you that knows the truth. Jesus died for your sins. No other prophet or martyr has ever or will ever say anything like that. And lord knows there's some sinners out there. God forgive me, because I'm one.

Holocaust denial is ignorant. They wish to erase a historical moral
fault that might be held against them. They want to deny the jews
a historical moral victory. They want to deny the jews their "victimhood"
so that they can be victims too.
I have a better idea. I love that the holocaust occoured, because
it was an intensive event of de-humanization and mind-stunning brutality.
It deeply shames even those who were not yet alive at the time. It
defines jews, especially "secular" ones more than their
formal religious narrative does. It is a nerve, raw and exposed and
should therefore be mocked, belittled, laughed at, celebrated, and
honored. Especially in the presence of the few remaining survivors.
The survivors are now old prunes who have senile dementia, but there
is still a tear available behind their eyes should you wish to drag
it out. You should see the heavy silence many of them fall into at
the mention of their tattoos.
The depth of psychic torment is astounding to observe and thrilling
to belittle...the hurt can turn to anger and the careful selection
of statements such as "Auschwitz? What's the big deal? You should
have been there in college when I was broke and couldn't pay the rent!
I had nothing to eat but mac and cheese! Try THAT for hunger!".
The rage within old people is surprising.
Belittling the holocaust provides a wonderful pleasure that denying
the holocaust simply doesn't provide. Laughing at Schindlers List
or The Sorrow and The Pity is more productive than protesting outside
the cinema.
Best of all, by belittling it, you scare people into thinking that
the lesson has not been learned, and you cause them to fear. Fear
in others is it's own reward.

Holocaust denial is ignorant. They wish to erase a historical moral
fault that might be held against them. They want to deny the jews
a historical moral victory. They want to deny the jews their "victimhood"
so that they can be victims too.
I have a better idea. I love that the holocaust occoured, because
it was an intensive event of de-humanization and mind-stunning brutality.
It deeply shames even those who were not yet alive at the time. It
defines jews, especially "secular" ones more than their
formal religious narrative does. It is a nerve, raw and exposed and
should therefore be mocked, belittled, laughed at, celebrated, and
honored. Especially in the presence of the few remaining survivors.
The survivors are now old prunes who have senile dementia, but there
is still a tear available behind their eyes should you wish to drag
it out. You should see the heavy silence many of them fall into at
the mention of their tattoos.
The depth of psychic torment is astounding to observe and thrilling
to belittle...the hurt can turn to anger and the careful selection
of statements such as "Auschwitz? What's the big deal? You should
have been there in college when I was broke and couldn't pay the rent!
I had nothing to eat but mac and cheese! Try THAT for hunger!".
The rage within old people is surprising.
Belittling the holocaust provides a wonderful pleasure that denying
the holocaust simply doesn't provide. Laughing at Schindlers List
or The Sorrow and The Pity is more productive than protesting outside
the cinema.
Best of all, by belittling it, you scare people into thinking that
the lesson has not been learned, and you cause them to fear. Fear
in others is it's own reward.

Holocaust denial is ignorant. They wish to erase a historical moral
fault that might be held against them. They want to deny the jews
a historical moral victory. They want to deny the jews their "victimhood"
so that they can be victims too.
I have a better idea. I love that the holocaust occoured, because
it was an intensive event of de-humanization and mind-stunning brutality.
It deeply shames even those who were not yet alive at the time. It
defines jews, especially "secular" ones more than their
formal religious narrative does. It is a nerve, raw and exposed and
should therefore be mocked, belittled, laughed at, celebrated, and
honored. Especially in the presence of the few remaining survivors.
The survivors are now old prunes who have senile dementia, but there
is still a tear available behind their eyes should you wish to drag
it out. You should see the heavy silence many of them fall into at
the mention of their tattoos.
The depth of psychic torment is astounding to observe and thrilling
to belittle...the hurt can turn to anger and the careful selection
of statements such as "Auschwitz? What's the big deal? You should
have been there in college when I was broke and couldn't pay the rent!
I had nothing to eat but mac and cheese! Try THAT for hunger!".
The rage within old people is surprising.
Belittling the holocaust provides a wonderful pleasure that denying
the holocaust simply doesn't provide. Laughing at Schindlers List
or The Sorrow and The Pity is more productive than protesting outside
the cinema.
Best of all, by belittling it, you scare people into thinking that
the lesson has not been learned, and you cause them to fear. Fear
in others is it's own reward.

Memo to Mel: Hope you worked on your issues bro...Your film was well made but if one word comes to mind, it's OVERKILL...You pummeled me into Submission to the point where my tears were clogged and all I wanted to do was leave your movie. I was not the only person who felt this way. The Hype worked, it got me to the theatre...But really the only gore and voilence I want is of the KILL BILL kind not the Beating you ENDURED on your audience! Glad I saw it, but really it's just a overblown production that I will not be buying on DVD! Anyone noticed that Monica Belluci has now put herself in two of the most sickest and voilent movies ever made? Hail to the NEW SCREAM QUEEN! MISS BELLUCI YOU BLOODY WHORE!

With the amount of posts I apologise for not getting through all of them as my connection speed won't let me load the page properly. I don't know if anyone has anybody commented on this but I'm not surprised with the review. I think part of it comes down to the fact that this movie has altered from it's original concept. Originally this film was to go without subtitles. Then the execs waded in and we have subtitles. I haven't seen the film yet and am no fan of Mel Gibson but surely his intention was to make a 'silent movie'. Very few people will understand the language and Gibsons intention was to tell the story entirely with visuals. No need to worry about the dialogue as it's not the important factor. Purely cinematic, everyone in the world could see the film and understand it without having to know what was being spoken on screen. I'm assuming you can ignore the subtitles and follow it just as easily. I hope my ramblings make some sort of sense. I'm looking forward to a Mel Gibson movie for the first time ever, unbelievable.

Well, nasty, you've certainly ranted and raved your points quite a bit. I see a bit of trouble in you point about the anti-semitism of the film. You said something to the affect of "Jewish people were the pre-dominant religion of the time...and if Jesus was in Brazil, the Brazilians would've crucified him!" Well, my biggest problem with this statement is that you're confusing nationality with religious alignment. Just because Judaism was the dominant religion of the time does NOT mean that the blame should be delt to them. The ROMANS crucified your savior, as they had countless other individuals. It was a time of blatant violence. Men were crucified by the Roman occupiers for no other reason but to warn the refugees heading into Galilee that they didn't fuck around. Just wanted to emphasize that point. I've said my piece. I'd just like to emphasize as well that I do not follow any religion, and I do not need one, so I would please ask that you respect this freedom of mine and not generalize all of us atheists out of blatant anger. Peace be to you all. Try to live painlessly.----fidelio.

This is the first and only time I will ever post here. I was compelled to post in regards to the statement in the subject above. I really hope this moron is kidding when he says he'd rather watch the Last Temptation over the Passion. So basically, he's saying that he would rather watch a movie where "Jesus" sleeps with Mary Magadalene. Ok...whatever floats your boat I suppose. I always thought some of your reviews were absolutely idiotic, but now you've proven it to me.

I wrote a review on Slashdot about "The Passion" - it's always interesting to read a review (such as Moriarty's) that has a non christian point of view for movies like this. Calling "The Last Temptation Of Christ" a better movie is sickening. I gave "Passion" a semi positive review and related it to the point of the movie. One other issue I'd like to touch on, I don't think Gibson made this movie for "The Just Spiritual" crowd such as Moriarty is, it was made for the Judeo-Christian religions - to help us better understand the manifestations of flesh vs soul that the Messiah took on for us.
My review was as follows:
"I went to see "The Passion Of The Christ" last night. It is a really good movie. It is very hard to sit through though.
I thought I would hate the subtitling, but it was actually very good - it made you focus on the story. The scenes with Pontias Pilate yield a lot of good quotes,; in Latin and subtitled in English about Truth. The word "veritas" in Latin meaning "truth" has a strong impact. It subtly/subliminally makes you think that truth is only truth; if it is verified. To Pilate, it seemed as if he saw this verification - that Jesus WAS the Messiah. This scene shows how plausible it has been for Jesus to become so real and believeable to Christians everywhere.
Another aspect of the movie that many reviews didn't really touch on - in a similar fashion to the movie "Gladiator", - it illustrates very clearly why the Roman Empire fell. The Romans became wicked/lawless/accusational/too over the top/power hungry - hmmm - seems like another country might be heading that way. When Jesus says (in a flashback in the movie) at the last supper, "They will persecute you in my name" that really hits home. Christians are persecuted on a daily basis in the media and in the courts. It gives you shivers to think that you might be arrested or killed for something you believe - something that is a logical next step to all the court cases/bans on crosses/cursing Christians.
One of the things that interested me was that this was promoted as the most direct transalation of the last 12 hours of Jesus' life - I didn't really see that. I did see the most vivid and most likely accurate view of the crucifying process and particularly how it pertained to Jesus.
Two scenes I didn't understand - Judas sees Jesus fall off a bridge - was that a demon near him holding him back from helping Jesus (the thing that growled and had big teeth) - the other scene - where Satan was holding a baby and the baby was like 60 years old (Satan was walking in the crowd when Jesus was being scourged/beaten and he carried a baby - when the baby turned around he had the face of a 50/60 year old man) - I'm thinking that this was Satan saying - "you're completing your task ... well look, here is the antichrist" - did the baby appear older because he won't be born for a while?
I have NEVER cried at a movie like I did last night. I have cried maybe once or twice. Once during the movie "Dad" with Ted Danson and the first time I saw "Forrest Gump" (scene where he tears up thinking that his son might be retarded). The scene in "Passion" where he is being scourged is incredibly moving. If you are a Christian, you can easily make the metaphor real in your heart - that what was done to Christ's human body is what sin does to your soul. You can also see a great metaphor in the end scene. When Jesus was risen - he had a new body, but swiss cheese holes on his hands and feet - good "Death Becomes Her" see through holes in his body.
This movie is a must see in my opinion, even if you aren't religious. If you are an intelligent thinker, it will at least get you thinking about how powerful the message of Jesus is to his followers. If you can hold yourself back from crying - you are a brick wall in my opinion. Crying is good every now and then.
My prediction is that this is a $300 million dollar movie by the end of March in the USA. The theaters were packed for EVERY SINGLE SHOW in 8 theaters (out of 20) for 22 different shows yesterday - that was just ONE theater complex! In my area, "The Matrix: Reloaded" wasn't even that crowded."

Moriarty is by far my favorite reviewer on AICN. I usually see eye to eye with his reviews, but in this case I guess we will have to differ. It sounds to me like his reasons for dissing the movie have nothing to do with what is going on up on the screen, but rather what was happening in his heart.
The same heat that softens wax, hardens clay.
If your heart is soft to God's tugging you will understand the movie's motives. If you view it like W.C Fields read his Bible (looking for loopholes), then you will find any reason you can not to take it to heart.

Moriarty is by far my favorite reviewer on AICN. I usually see eye to eye with his reviews, but in this case I guess we will have to differ. It sounds to me like his reasons for dissing the movie have nothing to do with what is going on up on the screen, but rather what was happening in his heart.
The same heat that softens wax, hardens clay.
If your heart is soft to God's tugging you will understand the movie's motives. If you view it like W.C Fields read his Bible (looking for loopholes), then you will find any reason you can not to take it to heart.

. . . you know, a movie that shows how God advocates slavery (Leviticus 25: 44-46), how God advocates violence against women and children (Numbers 13:15-18; 2 Kings 2: 23-25; Psalm 137: 8-9; Isaiah 13: 9-18; Hosea 13: 16, etc., etc.), how Jesus advocated hating your family (Luke 14:26), how Jesus didn't come to bring us peace, but rather "the sword" (Matthew 10:34), and how God thinks women should shut up and learn "their place" (1 Timothy 2:9-15). That's a movie I'd like to see, one that is brave enough to actually SHOW what is in the Bible. [I've got more verses if you want to see them. Look these up--they're hilarious. The one where God sends two bears to maul 42 children simply because they called Elijah "baldy" is particularly vindictive and petty of God, don't you think?]

Oh and for all those talk backers saying they want to see more on Jesus's teachings about love and forgiveness- Awesome!
pop into your local Bible practicing church on Sunday morning, the good people there will be more than happy to help you out.

I saw "The Passion of the Christ" last night and was just totally fucking blown-away. Yes, the violence is ultra-graphic but if that's how it REALLY was then I want to see it. It is shot beautifully, there are some disturbing CGI special effect shots in it, like when children teasing JUDAS turn into demons. My favorite moment of the film and perhaps the story itself, is the next to last thing Jesus says before he dies, "My God...why hast thou forsaken me?" It is in that which Mick Jagger once described as "Jesus Christ, had his moment of doubt and shame..." In that moment we are all Christ struggling with the issue of faith. This is so important to me because "HE DOESN"T FUCKING KNOW!!' It's Jesus, he's on the cross, about to die for all of our sins, and he has a crisis of faith. It is in this moment, that Martin Scorcese chose to base the entire movie "The Last Temptation of Christ." Of course, as we all know, Christ finds his faith with his final words, "God...into your hands I commend my spirit." That's not something reserved for the Son of God, that's for ALL of us. In the end there are no superstars, no celebrities, no one is more special. We all pray to commend our spirit to God after death and to me...that's punk.

Since you seem to be in the minority here (seeing as "most" people here think they are being funny), maybe you are the stupid asshole? Possibly? The rules are made by society. Also, your other comments are very interesting. Way to go judging people you don't really know!!! You are so cool!

My wife and I saw it last night. And I must admit that I'm not entirely sure what to think about it. One thing is certain though and that is that I still think the "Jesus" film (aka The Jesus Film Project) done by Campus Crusade for Christ is the best portrayal of Christ ever put on film. It has the ability to move people without all the extreme gore found in Mel Gibson's The Passion. I am a Christian. A member of one of the more conservative Protestant groups out there. I love the Lord with all my heart and I was thrilled to hear this movie was being made. I've followed it "religiously" through it's production and have been reading the boards and reviews non stop and just couldn't wait to see it. But now that I have seen it I'm left feeling more beat up than anything else. Sure, there were incredibly wonderful moments during the film where I found myself weeping almost uncontrollably. Deeply spiritual moments for me. But these moments were primarily during the flashback scenes that showed glimpses into Jesus' ministry and life. The contrast between His ministry of love against the brutal torture He was enduring was very powerful and almost overwhelming for me to watch. Unfortunately though, this movie is primarily about only the PHYSICAL suffering of Jesus Christ. Mel Gibson has succeeded at portraying an incredibly graphic vision of Christ's torture and death. This was his intention and I believe he has succeeded 110%. No question about that. My question is, is it really healthy to traumatize an audience this much...even if it is in an attempt to illustrate the suffering Christ endured for us. I know and believe with all my heart that it is the Cross which offers us the clearest illustration of God's love for us. Jesus Christ paid an incredible, unbelievable, unimaginable price for our redemption. But no amount of blood or torn flesh can ever even come close to explaining the true price Jesus paid for our redemption. We can never fully understand this because none of us have as much to put on the line as Jesus did. I fear for all the children who will be exposed to this. I'm 34, a huge fan of cinema...not easily shocked...and it was almost unbearable for me. What is it going to do to a 12 year old? Is it healthy to view this much gore even if it is to illustrate the Passion of Jesus Christ? I don't know. Maybe. Maybe I just can't handle it and it's fine for everyone else. But what I find most depressing is that I really believe that Mel Gibson could have given us so much more...and with less nightmare inducing violence. As I've already stated, I believe Christ's suffering was so much more than just the physical suffering. The mental anguish Jesus experienced due to the weight of the sins of the world and the feeling of complete separation from His Father were I believe far more difficult for Jesus to deal with. Not to mention the fact that humanity didn't exactly greet Him with open arms and thank Him for His sacrifice. When Jesus cries out, "My God why have you forsaken me" I really believe that **at that moment** Jesus felt forsaken and actually feared that the separation from His Father would be permanent. That His sacrifice would mean His permanent death. And yet He remained on the cross. Having full power to come down off of it He stayed put. Having full authority to call forth legions of Angels to His aid, He instead endured to the bitter end. God was willing to pay the ultimate sacrifice to save miserable pathetic sinners. Of course Jesus came to terms with this when it said "It is finished" but I really believe there was a time when Jesus could not be sure He would be resurrected and yet He went through with it all anyway. That is Love. And granted (thankfully), the movie touches on Christ's mental anguish in Gethsemane and other moments throughout, but unfortunately, it's the physical suffering that accounts for the majority of the screen time and that to me is a shame. Finally, and I know this is probably stupid, but I was hoping for a film I could show my agnostic friends to help illustrate to them why I love the Lord so much. But unfortunately this is not that film. Obviously, no film could convince a non-believer that Jesus is God. But I was hoping for something that would at least help them understand how wonderful the Christian view of Jesus really is. From what I'm hearing, most agnostics can't understand why Christians are so in love with this movie. It almost makes us look bloodthirsty and I can't blame them for feeling this way. Don't get me wrong, I was deeply moved at times during the film, but I do not agree with Mel's decision to make this as gory as He did. I don't believe it was necessary and I also fear that it will have unhealthy consequences for believers and non-believers alike. Just my opinion...

I do think this movie will benefit some people a great deal. Although I feel the amount of violence will have a negative impact on everyone to some extent, this doesn't mean that some people won't be blessed by it. It's just that for me, the Hitchcock method of hinting at horror without displaying the blood and gore is just as effective at conveying the message and without the damage I believe extreme violence can cause to some people. Peace.

He took upon His body ALL the sins EVER in the world. SO, YEAH, DUH he's going to get ripped up unbelievable cause - regardless of whether or not people think they sin THEY DO.
Truth is - Jesus was a real historical fact. AND he either is the savior or he is not.
its obvious on many levels that He is. THose who dont want to believe that -- dont believe bacause that would mean changing one's life and actually searching for TRUTH in things --- instead of seeking our own self centered desires all the time and acting like nothing more then baseless, body craving affected animals. He showed that we CAN BE more then that. But idiots abound -- on here talking about wanting tits in the movie, etc. Time will tell - look into MEDJUGORJE - soon the whole world will know of it and will know that Jesus is real. It will come as a massive wakeup to these people who seek themselves in all things instead of something beyond their desires.
TRUTH

oooops did that offend. sorry if the truth hurts. See - liberals, just because you THINK something doesnt make it the TRUTH. sorry for that reality.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion and guess what. ITS JUST THAT> AN OPINION> Pro choicers think its a womens right. fine. but guess what - an abortion is the INTENTIONAL killing of a life form (human being) in the mother's womb. Just because they THINK its not really a child doesnt mean ITS NOT. IT STILL IS> DUH!!
The right to choose is not the right to kill. SO, just because people think Jesus isnt the Savior, doesnt mean he's NOT. The movie is what it is. Either take it or leave it. But at least have the intelligence to defend your point of view and not think that you delete reality just because you have thoughts. AND anyone on here posting actual thoughts about the movie, who hasnt seen it (ANDY ROONEY EATS ASS) should drink a hot glass of steaming diahrea. Cause you're an ass. At least see the movie before you use MSNBC and the Clinton News Network to tell you how anti jewish, and horribly violent it is. KILL BILL violence = good. Jesus violence = cant deal with it.

Dude, I'm impressed. Yes, many times Jesus quotes from the Old Testament. This sorta becomes a habit for New Testament writers/speakers. The interesting thing to me is how the New Testament speakers, including Jesus, handle context and meaning when quoting the Old Testament. Sometimes they intend the same context/meaning as the original and sometimes it's altered slightly or even completely to suit their needs. Sometimes this is obvious as is the case (as someone already pointed out on this board) with some of the other Prophecies of Jesus quoted in the Gospels. In some of these "prophecies" the Old Testament writer was referring to something contemporary to their time, but the New Testament writer assumes/assigns the link to Jesus. I don't see a problem with this, but that's a completely different topic. How you take Christ's words here definitely has a lot to do with what you personally think is going through His head. I do believe that Jesus knew He was accomplishing His mission by hanging there. I also believe that there was a time that He was unsure if that mission still included His resurrection yet He was still willing to go through with it. Just personal opinion. My belief helps me to tie up theological loose ends that are created by the event and other writings in the New Testament. I could be wrong though. But I definitely appreciate your comment. Peace.

Another good point (at least part of what you say). Of course I use faith to cover the holes. There are plenty of them! Science does the same when it continues to look for evidence to support evolutionary theory even when extensive revision is necessary due to new compelling discoveries. Happens all the time. Look, I don't subscribe to the idea that I can prove the validity of the Bible historically or scientifically. It's a personal philosophy that I've developed and continues to develop as I learn and experience new things. I look at the collection of evidence that exists along with the events that have taken place in my own life and combine these with my understanding of the message found in the Bible, my understanding of prophecy, etc. etc. and come to the personal conviction that it's believable. I believe that what the Book is saying is true. I believe it makes more sense (to me anyway) than the ideas put forward by science. I think this is the same for someone that believes in evolution and the Big Bang. These things cannot be proven. Even scientists still call them theories. I applaud the scientific world for looking for answers that explain their questions. I am happy that they look at the evidence they have gathered to support their theories and in fact constantly update them as new evidence is found that necessitates change. The point is, they have chosen a philosophy that makes sense to them and seek evidence to support it. The problem comes when individuals within either group (Christians or scientists) starts to believe they can prove or have proven their point. Sorry, can't be done. A good scientist doesn't lose faith in his/her philosophy even when a theory has to be completely rewritten. They simply rework it and move on. Good for them. Christians and Evolutionists are the same in that they both have a personal philosophy and both look for evidence that supports their philosophy. Obviously the two philosophies are very different...but that's not the point.

I like you Blade. You remind me of a agnostic friend I knew on Guam. In fact, Brent, is that you? If so, did you ever identify that miniture black and yellow clownfish I collected for you or do I get to name it?! Anyway, I could be wrong about my understanding of the word Scientific Theory as opposed to Scientific Law, but according to Dictionary.com theory is among other things: A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena. It also lists it as: An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture. I contrast this with Scientific Law. The fact that evolutionary theory is constantly updated, modified, revised...and yet does not deter ones view that it is still basically correct leads me to the ideas I presented about philosphy. For instance, the discovery that frogs didn't spontaneously generate from dirty water didn't cause anyone to completely throw out the idea of spontaneous generation. In fact, if you look deep enough, it's still a part of evolutionary theory...only to a much much much smaller extent than it was originally. I don't see a problem with this. It's science. It's philosophy. It's all good. Now, Brent, if that is you, I'll be getting back to you on the name of that new species of clownfish I know I discovered.

Anyone that's complaining about or attributing The Passion's large first day box office returns to the fact that several churches across the country have rented out theatres for their congregations/youth groups - I'll have you know that just about every church in my area did the same for Two Towers and Return of the King. So did all those churches alone account for the LotR's big first day sales? Of course not. There's obviously some hunger among the general populace to see this movie, The Passion, and you can't deny that. When close to 83% of the United States' population claim to be "Christian", what else would you expect?

Look, I'm an athiest, but as a historian I've studied the New Testament extensively. To understand the Western World's history, the bible is actually a pretty important text.
The context are the Gospels. Gibson actually takes kind of an amalgam of stories distributed throught the four. I don't want to write too long, but the answer to context is this: Gibson wanted to film the Gospels. That's it.
Sure, the film deals very much with suffering, and courage and strength, as well as mankind's unescapable weakness, i.e. original sin, but the film is really for those who have a firm knowledge of what they're seeing; remember his threat to make it without subtitles?
Moriarity, I really think you reveal a less than stellar intellect in this review. You kind of state an indifference to the actual New Testament, and then criticize Gibson for not bringing you in. You want in? The do the reading, research, etc. It's not a question of faith, but of interest, really.

Comments on Moriarty--
In what seems to be a zeal to avoid being anti-semitic, you deny the historicity of the Gospels and exculpate the Jewish authorities of any responsibility for Christ's crucifixion. Never mind the fact that throughout all the Gospels you find Christ rebuking the authorities for their hardness of heart, and for not accepting their Messiah. The Gospels must be read together, as each account supplements the other--this is what Christians rely on, not some imaginary "true history" cooked up in the imagination of some modern scripture "scholar" or historian, who accepts only what is common to all 4 and denies what is unique to one Gospel as being historical. Could there have been other details added? Yes. But to argue that the Jewish authorities are without guilt is wrong-headed, and cannot be justifiable, even if you believe the various talking heads who have been advancing this opinion in the media.
It is quite clear that the Jewish authorities who held sway in the Sanhedrin were quite aware of Christ's claims to be the Messiah that was promised to them and to be God. Yet they reject Him nonetheless. Is it explained in the movie why they reject Him? No--but Christ Himself says that they have witnessed enough signs to believe that what He says about Himself is true--and yet they do not believe... How can this be ignored? What theory would you advance instead to explain the actions of the Sanhedrin? That they thought Christ was a political upstart and feared He would lead a political movement, and therefore turned Him over to the Roman authorities before the Romans punished all Jews? But it is partly because Christ was not a earthly political Messiah who would restore the Jewish kingdom and turn out the Romans that those members of the Sanhedrin rejected Him.
Secondly, dealing with the last 12 hours does restrict what the artist can convey--rather than using narrative, or the rest of the life of Christ to explain Christianity, as other movies have attempted to do, Gibson wanted to focus on just this one part--nevertheless, there is enough theological depth conveyed through symbol and events for those who already believe. Will non-Christians have a difficult time understanding the movie or Christianity based on this one movie? Perhaps. But there are always resources available from which they can learn more. The movie shows how Christ is the fulfillment of God's promises to Abraham, and how the New Covenant replaces the Old, how Christ is the one who leads Jews (and non-Jews) out of slavery to sin in the new Passover. (the first scene with Mary and Mary Magdalene, the flashbacks to the Last Supper, etc.) The dominion of the devil over mankind is broken--man is restored to the posssilibility of friendship with God. (As exemplified with what Christ says to the good thief.)
Perhaps you should learn more about what the Christian tradition teaches about Christ, and see how the movie reflects this, rather than judge the movie on what you think Christianity is about.

First my review of the film. It is true that this is a movie for people who know the Christian faith in some way or another. I'm not saying you have to be Christian (I'm atheist myself) but it'll help if you've either read the Bible or at least watched Mysteries of the Bible on A&E (or History, whatever channel it's on now). Honestly, most of my knowledge comes from what I've seen on TV, but its more than enough to get a sense of the faith and everything leading up to where The Passion starts. If you don't know the dogma or the history yeah you're gonna be screwed and you'll probably shrug it off. Now I loved this movie. I think it really does a great job of showing the physical suffering of Jesus and what he finally had to go through to fulfill his mission on earth. It does concentrate a bit too much on the brutality (and boy was it brutal), but overall I think it's message is clear. The sins of mankind are so much that only through much agony and suffering by the best of men can mankind be saved. That message can be applied today. My one bitch with this film is it's not long enough. I wish Mel Gibson had made a three hour long film to get some of the other things Jesus said and did to put it in better context. Or maybe he'll do a prequel and cover everything up to the point Judas sells Jesus out. Also, more on the resurrection would have been nice. But whatever. As it is the movie is damn good. Great even. Very Oscar worthy. ----------------------------------------------------- Now to the people that need to be slapped. This is what pisses me off, watching so called reasonable atheists denying Jesus ever existed, like the Bible was concocted by a group of friggin Illuminati sitting around a fire thinking up new ways to keep the mindless rabble in line (Actually people do come to that conclusion, kinda sorta, but the hard part is believing it's the more rational explanation). And then asking for proof of Jesus existence without using the definitive source! That's like me asking for proof of Thomas Jefferons existence without pointing to his writings and his grave! Oh shit but you people give me a headache. Now someone way up above said if you can prove Jesus existed there would be no atheists, Muslims, Jews etc etc etc. Actually I am an atheist and I believe Jesus existed. I just don't believe he was the son of God and I don't believe he was in any way shape or form Divine. Muslims DO believe in Jesus. As I understand he's like their second biggest prophet next to Mohammed and will return to earth come doomsday. Jews believe he didn't fulfill the messianic prophecies completely so they don't believe he is their messiah. It's not a matter of proving his existence, it's about proving his divinity. I think that is what you meant to say. Okay, now there is some Christian fellow who said atheists don't wanna believe in anything even if it is true. Well that's a huge load of crap. An atheist is someone who lacks any sort of theistic belief. Now we can all say, for instance, gravity is true. That statement above would imply that an atheist doesn't believe in gravity. Put it this way. Truth is an acknowledgemeant of reality. Now about 99.9% of people acknowledge reality (kind of hard not to) and you have to be pretty stupid to deny it (though there are some so called intellectuals who spend a fair amount of time doing just that). To basically say atheism is synonimous with burying your head in the sand or sticking your fingers in your ears while loudly saying, "LALALALA," is pretty silly. There is also a fair amount of scientific types whoare atheist and basically go around proving facts of reality. Now it is true that some atheists cling to ideas with a near religious fervor (like communists but it would take a devotion stronger than the Pope's to believe in the idea that that system works wouldn't it?) but to use such a broad brush when describing atheists? Now that's just silly.

I'm amazed that people say the Gospels fly in the face of historical fact. Where did you get this info? Everything from the Dead Sea scrolls to the works of Josephus to excavation and archaeology support what the Bible says. Ah, the stupidity... On a side note, rock on Gibson! I've loved almost all the movies he's starred and directed in and can't wait to see this. All the controversy is probably due to the fact that it is a CHRISTIAN movie, no doubt. Jesus Christ is a controversial figure, because He is perfect and non-believers hate that. That's how it was 2000 years ago and how it is today. Hence people making up stuff like 'the Bible's not historical or something...' Get a clue.

this is not a perfect movie, even witholding consideration for the level of violence or the theological/political intent. probably the best cinematic critique is that it is a 'SERVICEABLE' film.
lots of things simply do not develop very well, many of the characterizations seem slapped on and it's simply not very 'tight' structurally or poetically speaking....
7 of 10 (this is my review from metacritic... you guys should check out the reviews there... the movie is very very polarizing)
This is NOT a movie that a lot of non-christians, or people that are not familiar with the tennets of christianity are gonna 'get', in my opinion.
for christians, the value of the movie lies close to the ritual of communion - whose almost sole purpose is to reflect upon the sacrifice. and a great deal of emotional mileage is obtained by means of the interplay between the movie itself and META-movie thoughts... that the scourging, that the torture, the blood was for ME. for christians, they would not be merely spectators but participants and it is very very personal. in that respect, the vividness of the violence and cruelty is not only appropriate but NECESSARY - for what is the value of reflection without knowledge.
but for those without such backgrounding, i think the movie may come across as almost single mindedly, inexplicably violent. and the obligatory exposition of the 'backstory' is played so deftly as to be nearly missed. To mel's credit, the movie is not - as many have said - UNWATCHABLY VIOLENT. there are moments during the scourging scene where i believe most of the audience is subconsciously willing the characters to stop - but that is a sign of the movie's effectiveness... it's not THAT VIOLENT.
i think one of the monumental achievements of the film is that it IS watchable. the subject matter is basically about the torture and execution of someone. that is the whole of the story of the film. but the structure of the narrative keeps things moving and more importantly, keeping the violence from diminishing into monotony. the flashbacks - while cinematically trite - are an effective way of parceling out the pain and lending depth and background to a narrative that would not do with that stuff being artificially embedded into it.
towards the end, one of the motifs that the narrative builds on is the idea of 'almost there'. considering what the immediate 'there' refers to, it's a morbid joke of sorts but it very much builds i think on that precise sentiment in the audience.
it WAS surprising how much of the movie is supernaturalized however. granted that the very subject matter is nothing if not supernatural and the last shot is perfectly handled. but the presence of evil is somewhat haphazard and the character of evil doesn't have a very successful narrative arc or development - just episodic appearances. in any case, i wasn't aware that at least in one instance, that evil could be so... furry.
the digital fx work is beautifully and seamlessly done with a noteworthy one being a quite literal god's eye view... that weeps!
makeup effects are disturbingly convincing. but when the earthquake breaks up the temple, it reminded me a lot of the bible flicks from the 60s.
cinematography and production design is amazing. it is not hollywood. it's very gritty and everything feels aged, worn and authentic.
caviezel does an amazing job. he portrays a true conundrum of a character with amazing humanity and nicely avoids a jesus who looks like 'he's walking around with a pebble in his shoe'. monica bellucci seemed a bit conspicuous... kinda stuck out. mary was played i think very 'catholic' and perhaps appropriately so. there is a transcendence in her portrayal of the character that is very difficult at times to empathize with. but it is admittedly difficult to conceive of the exact mechanics of a mom/son relationship where the son claims to be, and the mother believes that he is, god. Peter is played briefly but the character is drawn sharply and familiarly. Pilate is portrayed with a bit of depth, but most of the incidental characters and nearly all the romans are cardboard cutout baddies as is caiaphas. however, while the movie does not absolve every single jew in frame of any and all animosity toward jesus, it also does not portray 'the jewish people' as a uniform mob either. there are characters in the sanhedrin that object to the trial and there are characters that show humanity toward jesus throughout like a sympathetic woman and a reluctant bearer of the cross... and women in general are portrayed as being sympathetic and human in the face of barbarism. all in all, i think that accusing the film as antisemitism would be inaccurate. also, any such charges would more appropriately be levied directly at the gospels themselves since almost all of the cited objectionable material stems from there in the first place. i think ted koppel was spot on when he said that ultimately, the movie will act very much like a rorschach. what you take away from it will in great part reflect what you bring to it. finally, if you take away nothing else from this movie, you will learn the surprising factoid that jesus invented the modern, western table.
man could you imagine? if he just patented it, he'd be filthy rich now!
---------------------------------
also, in response to moriarty, i think that a big problem of the charge of anti-semitism is confounded and confused because EVERYONE assumes that christianity means what they think it means and nobody has the SAME ANSWER! you appeal to the fact that history says things in contrary to the bible - ummm, well, that actually doesn't figure into most evangelical, born again thought! neither do resolutions from the vatican. they believe that the gospels are the inspired, inerrant WORD OF GOD - that is their final authority. so if you charge the film with anti-semitism, it would be more fair and appropriate to simply charge the gospels themselves - and in so doing, charging the central texts of a great majority of christian faith in america. i know mel is a variant catholic but i think you should take note of the kinds of allies that he has attracted to get a sense of his own theology. so you can't really read into the things you think he 'excluded'. because perhaps those were never valid choices for him in the first place.
as for the anti-semitism charge itself though, i think it's cinematically unfair. as noted, there are many examples to contradict the characterization as a unified, and vicious mob as i've noted above, particularly among the female populace.
but also, consider comparisons to a movie like schindler's list - in that movie, you have a little blond haired girl screaming 'go home jews!'.... that's a pretty inflammatory and even all-encompassing characterization of the GERMAN PEOPLE dontcha think? it characterizes then not just the NAZI PARTY but the whole german population and attributes the blame of the holocaust onto them all... or at least the argument can be made for that. and i would say that schindler deals with a villainized group much less even-handedly and carefully than this movie does.
so just in terms of cinematic history and language, TPOC plays by the standard hollywood rules: if you have bad guys that happen to be of GROUP A, you must also show members of GROUP A participating as protagonists or aids to the protagonist as well.
under the standards by which one would consider this movie antisemitic, you can never have a movie where the story is that ONE GROUP OF PEOPLE victimizes ANOTHER GROUP OF PEOPLE.
but that's a tough story line to avoid cuz pretty much that is the history of the world!
sure, nuts can go see this movie and become antisemitically enraged. people have seen the matrix and heat and have done very evil things too. but was that the intent of those films? must we create all content to be as mild as possible so as not to inadvertently inflame the most psychotic and ignorant among us?
jin

Boys, boys.
bladeunit..... WRONG. I am a catholic. which is the faith began by JESUS Himself (regardless of all the arguments, hypothesis, new found gnostic documents, blah, blah) He made Peter the rock upon which He would build His church. 2000 years later - that one faith KATHOLIKA still exists.
The one true church teaches that CAPITAL PUNISHMENT IS WRONG -- JUST LIKE ABORTION IS WRONG. SO your logic, which is good, = the catholic faith's teachings which are true on all things re: faith and morality. And in this year 2004, people will realize the truth of God more clearly then they have ever before. And not because of this movie --- this is only groundwork that the Holy Spirit is laying down for the human race. look into Spiritdaily.com if you want to know more. Opinions will soon, more and more, be realized as just that -- and the reality of TRUTH will become understood and lived.

boys, boys.
bladeunit......WRONG!!
The Catholic faith (the one and only one that follows Jesus that was started by Jesus -- He said to Peter, you are the ROCK upon which I will build MY CHURCH) That one church KATHOLIKA is still here 2000 years later.
the Cathoic faith teaches, correctly,that ABORTION IS WRONG AND THAT CAPITAL PUNISHMENT IS WRONG. so, blade, your logic, which is good, equals the teaching of the Catholic faith on this subject. Because,the Catholic faith's teaching on all things re: faith and morality are correct. which is why they are logical. God made us and the Laws of Nature and Morality and so they are logical to us as His creatures.
In this year, every human will understand the reality of God as he/she never has before -- 2004.
And it is not this movie that will do it, this is only groundwork that the Holy Spirit is laying for something much bigger.
spiritdaily.com look into it.
truth.

...and the reason Christ's story is so powerful, in particular The Passion. It's powerful because it tells us that suffering has meaning. Everyone suffers in life, and you either wallow in it, or rise above it by giving it meaning. The Passion of the Christ portrays in the starkest possible terms. Jesus suffered about as much as any human ever could, yet he still had love and hope for humanity, and realized through it all that his suffering had a purpose. All this nonsense about anti-semitism misses the whole point of the film, and Jesus's life. Even if the movie did place all the blame of his death on the Jews (which I don't think it does), who cares? This happened 2,000 frickin' years ago. The Jews of then have as much to do with the Jews of today as today's Christians have to do with the ones who perpetrated the Crusades and the inquisition.

(bleep to censor blasphemy for those who would like to cut out the tongue of an unholy person), THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST borders on gladiatorial awfulness. Only unconventional usage of dead tongues, better-than-expected production values, Caleb's pretty cinematography, Jim Caviezel's stellar acting and good gore F/X effects saved the movie from collapsing into referential self-parody. It's a triple-cheeseburger Saturday-night-slammaster Christian movie for the masses to digest and shit out sweet turds to flush and let life move on with dignity intact. As an agnostic and a rabid liberal, I could barely contain myself from audibly chuckling inappropratingly at certain awkward and ham-fisted scenes of ponderous self-importance. Terrence Malick, a devout Episcopalian, would direct this purported story ten times better with multi-layered subtlety and sublime philosophical viewpoint than Mel's lard-tainted cheese-puff version. Even Mel appropriated the exact same scene of a woman moving along the crowd in slow motion from Braveheart! I have nothing against the story or the Christ, but the movie left me deeply underwhelmed and coldly unimpressed despite the noisy hype. It stikes me as strange THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST is a family and date movie, because I saw this film in a late night (10:05) screening comprised of almost all young couples and some parents with their little kids in attendance. I had to make mental commentary of Monty Python's satirical masterpiece LIFE OF BRIAN during the movie to make it more bearable when I had to watch the ham-&-cheese scene after scene with the exception of the sequences graphicly depicting the suffering and agony of Christ. My sincere apology Mel, you should have handed it to Malick or other monumentally gifted & capable hand and stay behind as a producer to turn out a better product that touch on profundity without the unneccessary sledgehammer approach to cheese factory of typical Christian/Mormon made-in-America production movies for bomb shelter-dwelling high school seminary students.

First, it is true this film probably doesn't mean what it is supposed to to anyone but those who are Christian. I cannot imagine someone who is of another religion or who is atheist or agnostic to understand why this film was made. It is they who will see this film and judge it merely on it's technical merits. If you do not and have not followed the Him in your life and if you have a very closed mind, don't bother seeing this film. If you think that the Bible is all a bunch of drivel and that this is all made up, then please don't waste your money or time. If you are Christian and you do (as much as possible) live by the Word, then you will be moved.
Next, the movie is called 'The Passion of the Christ' because is is about his suffering, what he went through for everyone. The word 'passion' long ago referred to pain and suffering. It is not about the Resurrection; it is not about His past. Stop trashing the film because of this. This film is not 'horrid'. These events occurred in a day when jewish religious leaders (NOT the entire jewish race -- those who spout cries of anti-semitism, get over yourselves. Political correctness is DYING, thank God) felt threatened by Jesus and his teachings. They were not about to let Someone else hone in on their territory. Jesus was whipped and beaten to make a point to all who saw it. Sure, it is very hard to watch. It's not the the movie was better than the Book in this case but that the movie was a bit more revealing.
Third, the movie, besides the Gospels, is also based upon the 14 stations of the Cross. I won't go into details; do a goggle-search and find out for yourself.
Sadly, that is the problem with many critics who see films and base their reviews solely on their knowledge of what a movie is 'supposed' to be. Our own local rag reviewer never even read the 'Lord of the Rings' series and his reviews reflected that. The same thing happened on this film...here as well as in the local rag.
Whats really despressing is the number of adverse reactions to this film and to it's Subject.

It's absolutely incredible that so many people can debate and argue over fantasy. Throughout all this back-and-forth Talkback nonsense, not one person could show even a tiny speck of credible evidence that Jesus ever existed. All we're hearing is rhetoric. Isn't it amazing how much effort has been made over what is essentially "My fairy tale is better than your fairy tale!"? So scream "liberal" all you want, some of us are not deluded by contradictory myths. You may now return to jacking off to Gibson's snuff film.

as an agnostic I found the film a beatiful, personal expression of art. I have always found the story of the crucifixtion and Christ's sacrifice quite touching. Ultimately though, while watching the film one question kept running through my head: Why would the divine creator be so sadistic? He has the power to create the heavens and the earth and all who inhabit them, and the only way he can save our souls from eternal torture is by sending his son to be murdered in the most brutal and cruelest way imagineable!

Every film is made with an intended audience in mind, especially a film with theology of any type or sophistication at its core. 'The Passion of the Christ' is no exception. While it has been adopted by evangelical christians and rabid protestants as a conversion tool, it's clear from any kind of conscientious look at the film that this sort of grassroots ecumenical publicity campaign was more of an afterthought, a reaction to the earliest murmers of controversy. Those critics who decrie the film's radicalism or inaccessibility need only stop there. It wasn't made for them. No context for the brutality is provided because the intended audience knows the context. We don't get pretty postcard moments of Jesus kicking back with the twelve because that's not the story being told. That's backstory as familiar to the intended audience as it is unfamiliar to the asshole off the street who comes out of the theatre bitching that he didn't learn anything about Jesus' message. Read a book. Read the book. It's not Mel Gibson's job to give the masses a theological education. He didn't set out to do it and his film is being unjustly criticized because he failed to do it. This is a filmed Passion play. That's what it is, and that's all it is. And as such, Mel Gibson has created something brilliant, moving, and yes, beautiful. What's difficult for otherwise religious people to swallow is the sheer Catholic-ness of this movie. Catholics make bloody, violent movies. It's just part of the mindset. They grow up with it. Scorsese, De Palma, Hitchcock, and now Mel Gibson are all known for it.Ironically, however, protestant groups have really gotten behind the thing. It's as if they've just decided to ignore the more Catholic elements because they're so excited a Jesus movie is coming out of Hollywood. Throughout the film there's incredible amounts of Catholic imagery. The eucharist and its sanctity is a constant theme, Mary is deeply revered, the stations of the cross are cinematically highlighted, and the whole thing is essentially a film version of the Crucifix. No, the film didn't tell the whole story of Jesus. No, it didn't try to summarize the particulars of his message. It didn't even try to explore his theology. But the film succeeds in it's sole attempt, which is the goal of the Passion play: To spur in the hearts of the faithful a prayerful meditation on the suffering and death of Jesus the Christ.